Literature DB >> 15194019

Comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter.

Mark J Niebauer1, James E Brewer, Mina K Chung, Patrick J Tchou.   

Abstract

External cardioversion using the monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform is successful 70% to 94% of the time when using up to 360 J. The rectilinear biphasic (RLB) defibrillator has been shown to be superior in efficacy to the MDS waveform in atrial cardioversion in a small randomized study. This larger, retrospective study compares the results of the RLB waveform with those of the MDS waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter in a large cohort of patients. We performed 1,877 external cardioversion procedures in 1,361 patients for AF and atrial flutter by using the RLB defibrillator. We compared these results with those of the MDS defibrillator in 2,025 patients who underwent 2,818 cardioversion procedures. The overall success rates for the RLB defibrillator were 99.1% for AF and 99.2% for atrial flutter, and the corresponding success rates for the MDS defibrillator were 92.4% and 99.8% (p <0.001; RLB superior for AF). The median overall successful energy level for the MDS waveform was 200 J, whereas the corresponding RLB energy level was 100 J. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that underlying clinical conditions or use of antiarrhythmic drugs does not significantly affect overall success rates. Our results from >4,000 procedures confirmed and extended those of the previous report by showing a very high success rate for cardioversion of AF and atrial flutter using the RLB waveform. The MDS waveform was equally effective for atrial flutter but significantly less effective in terminating AF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15194019     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.03.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Reduced cardioversion thresholds for atrial fibrillation and flutter using the rectilinear biphasic waveform.

Authors:  Mark J Niebauer; Mina K Chung; James E Brewer; Patrick J Tchou
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  Intracardiac atrial defibrillation.

Authors:  Derek J Dosdall; Raymond E Ideker
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2006-12-28       Impact factor: 6.343

3.  Reduced motion external defibrillation: Reduced subject motion with equivalent defibrillation efficiency validated in swine.

Authors:  Ehud J Schmidt; Hassan Elahi; Eric S Meyer; Ryan Baumgaertner; Luca Neri; Ronald D Berger; Harikrishna Tandri; David W Hunter; Steven P Cohen; Matt T Oberdier; Henry R Halperin
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 6.779

4.  The role of biphasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Simon J Walsh; Ben M Glover; A A Jennifer Adgey
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2005-10-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.