PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 24, 2026Scientific Reports0 citationsOpen Access

Efficacy of a combined reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver for the cardioversion of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia: a retrospective cohort study

QLQiujie LiYJYisen JinWLWeiming Liang

Key Result

A combined reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver increased first-attempt cardioversion success for PSVT by 24.0% compared to the modified maneuver alone (59.2% vs 35.2%, aOR 2.79).

Key Points

  • This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a combined reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver compared to the modified maneuver alone for terminating PSVT.
  • Multicenter, retrospective cohort study involving hemodynamically stable adults with ECG-confirmed PSVT.
  • Patients received either a Combined VM (reverse Valsalva followed by modified Valsalva) or Modified VM Alone treatment.
  • Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for confounders such as age, sex, and medical history was performed.
  • First-attempt cardioversion success was higher in the Combined VM group (59.2%) compared to the Modified VM Alone group (35.2%).
  • Cumulative success rate after three attempts was greater in the Combined VM group (80.6% vs. 59.0%).
  • The need for rescue medication was significantly lower in the Combined VM group (19.4% vs. 41.0%).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=208)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does a combined sequential reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver improve successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm on the first attempt in hemodynamically stable adult patients with PSVT compared to the modified Valsalva maneuver alone?

P
Population
208 hemodynamically stable adult patients with ECG-confirmed paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), mean age 49.0 (Combined VM) and 46.3 (Modified VM Alone), 54.4% and 57.1% female, multicenter (4 hospitals in China).
I
Intervention
Combined sequential reverse Valsalva maneuver (RVM) followed by modified Valsalva maneuver (MVM)
C
Comparator
Modified Valsalva maneuver (MVM) alone
O
Outcome
Successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm on the first attempt

A combined reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver significantly increased the rate of successful first-attempt cardioversion for PSVT compared to the modified Valsalva maneuver alone.

Main Result

Effect estimate: aOR 2.79 (95% CI 1.56-4.98)

Absolute Event Rate: 59.2% vs 35.2%

p-value: p=<0.001

Limitations

  • Retrospective design with lack of randomization and potential selection bias
  • Reliance on medical record documentation without standardized measurement of maneuver execution
  • Asymmetry in maneuver burden between the two groups (two sequential interventions vs single)
  • Classification of tachycardia subtype based primarily on surface ECG without systematic electrophysiological confirmation
  • Relatively small sample size, particularly in the AVRT subgroup
  • Temporal trends in adoption may have influenced the distribution of patients between groups
  • Inherent asymmetry in manoeuvre burden between the two groups
  • Reliance on surface ECG for arrhythmia subtype classification
  • Small sample size in the AVRT subgroup limiting statistical power

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of a combined sequential reverse Valsalva maneuver (RVM) and modified Valsalva maneuver (MVM) compared to the MVM alone for terminating paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT). A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted at four hospitals in China between January 2022 and March 2025. Hemodynamically stable adult patients with ECG-confirmed PSVT were included. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the initial treatment received: a Combined VM group (sequential RVM followed by MVM) and a Modified VM Alone group. The primary outcome was successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm on the first attempt. Secondary outcomes included cumulative success, need for rescue medication, and adverse events. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders, including age, sex, baseline heart rate, prior PSVT history, tachycardia subtype, body mass index, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. A total of 208 patients were included in the analysis. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The first-attempt cardioversion success rate was significantly higher in the Combined VM group than in the Modified VM Alone group (59.2% vs. 35.2%; absolute difference, 24.0%; 95% CI, 10.8% to 37.2%; P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the Combined VM group remained independently associated with a significantly higher likelihood of first-attempt cardioversion success (adjusted odds ratio aOR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.56 to 4.98; P < 0.001). The cumulative success rate after up to three attempts was also higher in the Combined VM group (80.6% vs. 59.0%; P = 0.001), which was associated with a significantly lower need for rescue medication (19.4% vs. 41.0%; P = 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported. In this retrospective study, a combined strategy of a reverse Valsalva maneuver followed by a modified Valsalva maneuver was associated with a significantly higher rate of successful cardioversion for PSVT compared to the modified Valsalva maneuver alone. This association persisted after adjustment for clinically relevant confounders. These findings suggest the potential of this novel, no-cost maneuver, and warrant confirmation in a large-scale randomized controlled trial.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Li et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) (n=208). Combined reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver vs. Modified Valsalva maneuver alone was evaluated on Successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm on the first attempt (aOR 2.79, 95% CI 1.56-4.98, p=<0.001). A combined reverse and modified Valsalva maneuver increased first-attempt cardioversion success for PSVT by 24.0% compared to the modified maneuver alone (59.2% vs 35.2%, aOR 2.79).

synapsesocial.com/papers/69eb0cb2553a5433e34b5a45https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-46135-3
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper