Why the study?
Does a biphasic external atrial defibrillation shock waveform improve clinical benefit compared to a monophasic shock waveform in patients undergoing cardioversion from atrial fibrillation?
Does a biphasic external atrial defibrillation shock waveform improve clinical benefit compared to a monophasic shock waveform in patients undergoing cardioversion from atrial fibrillation?
This editorial highlights the unresolved question of whether the theoretical and electrophysiological advantages of biphasic over monophasic shock waveforms for atrial defibrillation translate into tangible clinical benefits for patients.
In a previous issue of Heart, Scholten and colleagues presented data to show that a biphasic external atrial defibrillation shock waveform offers no significant advantage over a monophasic shock waveform in current clinical practice.1 However, there is evidence in this study and elsewhere to suggest that a biphasic defibrillation waveform is "better" than monophasic.2–5 The sense that this should be so may be engendered by the past experience of electrophysiologists with ventricular defibrillators and the decrease in defibrillation threshold that was seen with the advent of biphasic shock waveforms in these devices.6 The question is whether the perceived advantages of biphasic waveforms for atrial defibrillation can be translated into clinical benefit for patients?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeffrey Morgan (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: