Why the study?
Smaller randomized studies reported conflicting results on optimal electrode position for cardioverting AF, yet anterior-posterior positioning is widely used and believed superior.
Does anterior-lateral electrode positioning improve the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after the first shock compared to anterior-posterior positioning in patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for elective cardioversion?
Does anterior-lateral electrode positioning improve the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after the first shock compared to anterior-posterior positioning in patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for elective cardioversion?
Anterior-lateral electrode positioning is more effective than the standard anterior-posterior positioning for biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.
Anterior-lateral positioning may raise first-shock success in elective AF cardioversion; leaves open whether it should supplant anterior-posterior as standard.
BACKGROUND: Smaller randomized studies have reported conflicting results regarding the optimal electrode position for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. However, anterior-posterior electrode positioning is widely used as a standard and believed to be superior to anterior-lateral electrode positioning. Therefore, we aimed to compare anterior-lateral and anterior-posterior electrode positioning for cardioverting atrial fibrillation in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: In this multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for elective cardioversion to either anterior-lateral or anterior-posterior electrode positioning. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after the first shock. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after up to 4 shocks escalating to maximum energy. Safety outcomes were any cases of arrhythmia during or after cardioversion, skin redness, and patient-reported periprocedural pain. The number of patients in sinus rhythm after the final cardioversion shock was 216 (93%) assigned to anterior-lateral electrode positioning and 200 (85%) assigned to anterior-posterior electrode positioning (risk difference, 7 percentage points [95% CI, 2-12]). There were no significant differences between groups in any safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-lateral electrode positioning was more effective than anterior-posterior electrode positioning for biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. There were no significant differences in any safety outcome. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03817372.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: