Why the study?
Few randomized trials have compared impedance-compensated biphasic defibrillators in clinical use, prompting a comparison of pulsed biphasic and biphasic truncated exponential waveforms in cardioversion.
Does a pulsed biphasic waveform defibrillator reduce cumulative delivered energy compared to a biphasic truncated exponential waveform in patients undergoing elective cardioversion for atrial fibrillation?
Does a pulsed biphasic waveform defibrillator reduce cumulative delivered energy compared to a biphasic truncated exponential waveform in patients undergoing elective cardioversion for atrial fibrillation?
Pulsed biphasic and biphasic truncated exponential waveforms provide similar efficacy and safety for elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation using a fixed 200J protocol.
Both PB and BTE waveforms achieve high success rates with similar safety in elective AF cardioversion; confirms noninferiority for cumulative energy delivery.
A few randomized trials have compared impedance-compensated biphasic defibrillators in clinical use. We aim to compare pulsed biphasic (PB) and biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms in a non-inferiority cardioversion (CVS) study. This was a prospective monocentric randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients admitted for elective CVS of atrial fibrillation (AF) between February 2019 and March 2020 were alternately randomized to treatment with either a PB defibrillator (DEFIGARD TOUCH7, Schiller Médical, Wissembourg, France) or a BTE high-energy (BTE-HE) defibrillator (LIFEPAK15, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA). Fixed-energy protocol (200–200–200 J) was administered. CVS success was accepted if sinus rhythm was restored at 1 min post-shock. The study design considered non-inferiority testing of the primary outcome: cumulative delivered energy (CDE). Seventy-three out of 78 randomized patients received allocated intervention: 38 BTE-HE (52%), 35 PB (48%). Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups (p > 0.05). Both waveforms had similar CDE (mean ± standard deviation, 95% confidence interval): BTE-HE (253.9 ± 120.2 J, 214–293 J) vs. PB (226.0 ± 109.8 J, 188–264 J), p = 0.31. Indeed, effective PB shocks delivered significantly lower energies by mean of 25.6 J (95% CI 24–27.1 J, p < 0.001). Success rates were similar (BTE-HE vs. PB): 1 min first-shock (84.2% vs. 82.9%), 1 min CVS (97.4% vs. 94.3%), 2 h CVS (94.7% vs. 94.3%), 24 h CVS (92.1% vs. 94.3%), p > 0.05. Safety analysis did not find CVS hazards, reporting insignificant changes of myocardial-specific biomarkers, transient and rare ST-segment deviations, and no case of harmful tachyarrhythmias and apnea. Cardioversion of AF with fixed-energy protocol 200–200–200 J was highly efficient and safe for both PB and BTE-HE waveforms. These similar performances were achieved despite differences in the waveforms’ technical design, associated with significantly lower delivered energy for the effective PB shocks. Clinical Trial Registration: Registration number: NCT04032678, trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Trendafilova et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: