Key result
IV procainamide produces ~126% greater early atrial ejection force than DC shock.
Why the study?
Does pharmacological cardioversion with intravenous procainamide improve the recovery of atrial ejection force compared to DC shock in patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=68)
Randomly assigned
Does pharmacological cardioversion with intravenous procainamide improve the recovery of atrial ejection force compared to DC shock in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 11.3% vs 5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Pharmacological cardioversion with intravenous procainamide results in a faster recovery of left atrial mechanical function compared to DC shock in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Favors i.v. procainamide over DC shock to preserve atrial mechanical function post-AF cardioversion; extends RCT evidence on post-procedural atrial recovery.
It is well known that the restoration of sinus rhythm is not always associated with the return of effective atrial contraction. Atrial ejection force (AEF) is a noninvasive Doppler derived parameter that measures the strength of the atrial contraction. The aim of the present study was to use pulsed-Doppler echocardiography to determine if different modalities of cardioversion influence the delay in the return of effective atrial contraction after cardioversion. DC shock and pharmacological therapy were compared. Sixty-eight patients were randomly cardioverted, either using DC shock or i.v. procainamide. The patients who were restored to a sinus rhythm had a complete Doppler echocardiographic examination within 1 hour after the restoration, after 24 hours, after 1 month, and after 3 months. AEF was measured and compared in the two groups of patients and within the same group. AEF was greater immediately and at 24 hours after cardioversion in patients who underwent pharmacological therapy compared to patients treated with DC shock (peak A wave, 60 +/- 9 vs 31 +/- 8 msec, P < 0.001; AEF 11.3 +/- 3 vs 5 +/- 2.9 dynes, P < 0.001). In both groups, AEF increases over time. In conclusion, AEF is a noninvasive parameter that can be easily measured after cardioversion and can give accurate information about the recovery of left atrial mechanical function. This finding may have important implications for guiding the anticoagulant therapy after cardioversion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattioli et al. (1999) conducted an RCT in Atrial Fibrillation (n=68). Pharmacological cardioversion (i.v. procainamide) vs. DC shock was evaluated on Atrial ejection force (AEF) immediately and at 24 hours after cardioversion (p=<0.001). Pharmacological cardioversion with i.v. procainamide resulted in greater atrial ejection force compared to DC shock immediately and at 24 hours (11.3 vs 5 dynes, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: