Key result
IV procainamide improves post-cardioversion atrial ejection force by ~126% over DC cardioversion.
Why the study?
Restoration of sinus rhythm after atrial fibrillation cardioversion is not always followed by immediate return of effective atrial contraction, and factors influencing this delay need evaluation.
Does intravenous procainamide improve early recovery of left atrial mechanical function compared to direct current shock in patients undergoing cardioversion for atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=70)
randomly chosen
Does intravenous procainamide improve early recovery of left atrial mechanical function compared to direct current shock in patients undergoing cardioversion for atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 11.3% vs 5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Pharmacologic cardioversion with procainamide is associated with a faster early recovery of left atrial mechanical function compared to direct current shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Atrial ejection force may guide post-cardioversion monitoring of mechanical recovery; leaves open whether mode or atrial size effects alter clinical outcomes.
Mattioli et al. (1999) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=70). Intravenous procainamide hydrochloride vs. Direct current shock was evaluated on Atrial ejection force immediately and 24 hours after cardioversion (dynes) (p=<0.001). Intravenous procainamide resulted in greater atrial ejection force immediately and 24 hours after cardioversion compared to direct current shock (11.3 vs 5.0 dynes; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: