Key result
Internal cardioversion was significantly more effective than external cardioversion in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (91% vs 67%, p=0.002).
Why the study?
Does internal cardioversion improve the restoration of sinus rhythm compared to external cardioversion in patients with chronic refractory atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=112)
randomized
Does internal cardioversion improve the restoration of sinus rhythm compared to external cardioversion in patients with chronic refractory atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 91% vs 67%
p-value: p=0.002
Internal cardioversion is significantly more effective than external cardioversion for restoring sinus rhythm in patients with chronic, refractory atrial fibrillation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Internal cardioversion may improve success in refractory AF; leaves open need for contemporary randomized confirmation before practice change.
Lévy et al. (1992) conducted an RCT in chronic atrial fibrillation (n=112). Internal cardioversion vs. External cardioversion was evaluated on efficacy of cardioversion (restoring sinus rhythm) (p=0.002). Internal cardioversion was significantly more effective than external cardioversion in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (91% vs 67%, p=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: