Why the study?
Do rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks improve cardioversion efficacy or reduce energy requirements compared to monophasic shocks in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Do rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks improve cardioversion efficacy or reduce energy requirements compared to monophasic shocks in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Biphasic shocks achieve equal cardioversion efficacy to monophasic shocks in atrial fibrillation but require significantly less cumulative energy.
Biphasic shocks may be preferred for AF cardioversion to minimize energy exposure; confirms equivalent efficacy with lower requirements versus monophasic in this RCT.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation between monophasic damped sine waveform and rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks at a high initial energy level and with a conventional paddle position. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study. PATIENTS AND SETTING: 227 patients admitted for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation to a tertiary referral centre. RESULTS: 70% of 109 patients treated with an initial 200 J monophasic shock were cardioverted to sinus rhythm, compared with 80% of 118 patients treated with an initial 120 J biphasic shock (NS). After the second shock (360 J monophasic or 200 J biphasic), 90% of the patients were in sinus rhythm in both groups. The mean cumulative energy used for successful cardioversion was 306 J for monophasic shocks and 159 J for biphasic shocks (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A protocol using monophasic waveform shocks in a 200-360 J sequence has the same efficacy (90%) as a protocol using rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks in a 120-200 J sequence. This equal efficacy is achieved with a significantly lower mean delivered energy level using the rectilinear biphasic shock waveform. The potential advantage of lower energy delivery for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation needs further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marcoen Scholten (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: