Literature DB >> 32007169

Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomised trial.

Ian G Stiell1, Marco L A Sivilotti2, Monica Taljaard3, David Birnie4, Alain Vadeboncoeur5, Corinne M Hohl6, Andrew D McRae7, Brian H Rowe8, Robert J Brison2, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy9, Laurent Macle5, Bjug Borgundvaag10, Judy Morris11, Eric Mercier12, Catherine M Clement3, Jennifer Brinkhurst3, Connor Sheehan3, Erica Brown3, Marie-Joe Nemnom3, George A Wells13, Jeffrey J Perry9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common arrythmia treated in the emergency department. Our primary aim was to compare conversion to sinus rhythm between pharmacological cardioversion followed by electrical cardioversion (drug-shock), and electrical cardioversion alone (shock-only). Our secondary aim was to compare the effectiveness of two pad positions for electrical cardioversion.
METHODS: We did a partial factorial trial of two protocols for patients with acute atrial fibrillation at 11 academic hospital emergency departments in Canada. We enrolled adult patients with acute atrial fibrillation. Protocol 1 was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled comparison of attempted pharmacological cardioversion with intravenous procainamide (15 mg/kg over 30 min) followed by electrical cardioversion if necessary (up to three shocks, each of ≥200 J), and placebo infusion followed by electrical cardioversion. For patients having electrical cardioversion, we used Protocol 2, a randomised, open-label, nested comparison of anteroposterior versus anterolateral pad positions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by study site) for Protocol 1 by on-site research personnel using an online electronic data capture system. Randomisation for Protocol 2 occurred 30 min after drug infusion for patients who had not converted and was stratified by site and Protocol 1 allocation. Patients and all research and emergency department staff were masked to treatment allocation for Protocol 1. The primary outcome was conversion to normal sinus rhythm for at least 30 min at any time after randomisation and up to a point immediately after three shocks. Protocol 1 was analysed by intention to treat and Protocol 2 excluded patients who did not receive electrical cardioversion. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891058.
FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, we enrolled 396 patients, and none were lost to follow-up. In the drug-shock group (n=204), conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 196 (96%) patients and in the shock-only group (n=192), conversion occurred in 176 (92%) patients (absolute difference 4%; 95% CI 0-9; p=0·07). The proportion of patients discharged home was 97% (n=198) versus 95% (n=183; p=0·60). 106 (52%) patients in the drug-shock group converted after drug infusion only. No patients had serious adverse events in follow-up. The different pad positions in Protocol 2 (n=244), had similar conversions to sinus rhythm (119 [94%] of 127 in anterolateral group vs 108 [92%] of 117 in anteroposterior group; p=0·68).
INTERPRETATION: Both the drug-shock and shock-only strategies were highly effective, rapid, and safe in restoring sinus rhythm for patients in the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation, avoiding the need for return to hospital. The drug infusion worked for about half of patients and avoided the resource intensive procedural sedation required for electrical cardioversion. We also found no significant difference between the anterolateral and anteroposterior pad positions for electrical cardioversion. Immediate rhythm control for patients in the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation leads to excellent outcomes. FUNDING: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32007169     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32994-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  8 in total

1.  Just the facts: atrial fibrillation or flutter in patients who are candidates for rhythm control.

Authors:  Ian G Stiell; Elisha Targonsky; Frank Scheuermeyer
Journal:  CJEM       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 2.410

2.  A randomized, controlled comparison of electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial flutter.

Authors:  Ian G Stiell; Marco L A Sivilotti; Monica Taljaard; David Birnie; Alain Vadeboncoeur; Corinne M Hohl; Andrew D McRae; Judy Morris; Eric Mercier; Laurent Macle; Robert J Brison; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy; Brian H Rowe; Bjug Borgundvaag; Catherine M Clement; Jennifer Brinkhurst; Erica Brown; Marie-Joe Nemnom; George A Wells; Jeffrey J Perry
Journal:  CJEM       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 2.410

Review 3.  How to Optimize Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  K E Juhani Airaksinen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-12       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  From Bench to Bedside-Implementing the New ABC Approach for Atrial Fibrillation in an Emergency Department Setting.

Authors:  Sophie Gupta; Martin Lutnik; Jan Niederdöckl; Sebastian Schnaubelt
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 4.614

5.  Thromboembolic events following cardioversion of acute atrial fibrillation and flutter: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Brenton M Wong; Jeffrey J Perry; Wei Cheng; Bo Zheng; Kevin Guo; Monica Taljaard; Allan C Skanes; Ian G Stiell
Journal:  CJEM       Date:  2021-03-14       Impact factor: 2.410

6.  Predictors of Acute Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Hospitalization across 7 U.S. Emergency Departments: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Bory Kea; E Margaret Warton; Dustin W Ballard; Dustin G Mark; Mary E Reed; Adina S Rauchwerger; Steven R Offerman; Uli K Chettipally; Patricia C Ramos; Daphne D Le; David S Glaser; David R Vinson
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2021-02-28

7.  Body Weight Counts-Cardioversion with Vernakalant or Ibutilide at the Emergency Department.

Authors:  Teresa Lindmayr; Sebastian Schnaubelt; Patrick Sulzgruber; Alexander Simon; Jan Niederdoeckl; Filippo Cacioppo; Nikola Schuetz; Hans Domanovits; Alexander Oskar Spiel
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-28       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 8.  2021 CAEP Acute Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter Best Practices Checklist.

Authors:  Ian G Stiell; Kerstin de Wit; Frank X Scheuermeyer; Alain Vadeboncoeur; Paul Angaran; Debra Eagles; Ian D Graham; Clare L Atzema; Patrick M Archambault; Troy Tebbenham; Andrew D McRae; Warren J Cheung; Ratika Parkash; Marc W Deyell; Geneviève Baril; Rick Mann; Rupinder Sahsi; Suneel Upadhye; Erica Brown; Jennifer Brinkhurst; Christian Chabot; Allan Skanes
Journal:  CJEM       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 2.410

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.