Delphine Lavignasse1,2, Elina Trendafilova1,2, Elena Dimitrova3, Vessela Krasteva4. 1. Paris University, Paris, France and INSERM, UMR-S970, Paris Cardiovascular Research Center, Paris, France. 2. The First Two Authors are Co-Authors. 3. Intensive Cardiology Care Unit, Cardiology Clinic, National Heart Hospital, Konovitsa 65 str, 1309, Sofia, Bulgaria. 4. Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev Str, Bl. 105, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of biphasic waveforms for cardioversion and defibrillation, the efficacy and safety of shocks has only been compared in a few studies. METHODS: This retrospective study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) pulsed energy (PE) waveform with a BTE low energy (LE) waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL). The treatment energies were following an escalating protocol for PE waveform (120-200-200J in AF and 30-120-200J in AFL) and LE waveform (100-200-200J in AF and 30-100-200J in AFL). The protocol was stopped at successful cardioversion (sinus rhythm at 1 minute post-shock), otherwise after the 3rd shock. If the 3rd BTE shock failed, a monophasic shock of 360J was delivered. RESULTS: From May 2008 to November 2017, 193 patients (153 PE, 40 LE) were included in the study. Both groups significantly differed in a few characteristics, including chest circumference (p<0.05). After adjustment, the success rate was not significantly different for the two waveforms (94.5% PE vs 92.5% LE, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] = 0.25 [0.03-2.2]).There was no difference in safety: post-shock changes in Hsc-TnI levels were similar (p=0.25). The efficient cumulative energy was particularly related with BSA (β = 131.5, p=0.05), AF/AFL duration (β = 0.24, p=0.01) and gender (β = 61.8, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The major clinical implications of this study concern the high success rate of cardioversion with both biphasic pulses and no superiority of LE over PE waveform with an excellent safety profile without post-shock myocardial injuries.
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of biphasic waveforms for cardioversion and defibrillation, the efficacy and safety of shocks has only been compared in a few studies. METHODS: This retrospective study aims at comparing the efficacy and safety of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) pulsed energy (PE) waveform with a BTE low energy (LE) waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL). The treatment energies were following an escalating protocol for PE waveform (120-200-200J in AF and 30-120-200J in AFL) and LE waveform (100-200-200J in AF and 30-100-200J in AFL). The protocol was stopped at successful cardioversion (sinus rhythm at 1 minute post-shock), otherwise after the 3rd shock. If the 3rd BTE shock failed, a monophasic shock of 360J was delivered. RESULTS: From May 2008 to November 2017, 193 patients (153 PE, 40 LE) were included in the study. Both groups significantly differed in a few characteristics, including chest circumference (p<0.05). After adjustment, the success rate was not significantly different for the two waveforms (94.5% PE vs 92.5% LE, Odds Ratio [95% Confidence Interval] = 0.25 [0.03-2.2]).There was no difference in safety: post-shock changes in Hsc-TnI levels were similar (p=0.25). The efficient cumulative energy was particularly related with BSA (β = 131.5, p=0.05), AF/AFL duration (β = 0.24, p=0.01) and gender (β = 61.8, p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The major clinical implications of this study concern the high success rate of cardioversion with both biphasic pulses and no superiority of LE over PE waveform with an excellent safety profile without post-shock myocardial injuries.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atrial fibrillation; Biphasic waveforms; Cardioversion; Low energy; Pulsed energy
Authors: Maureen L Kim; Soo G Kim; David S Park; Jay N Gross; Kevin J Ferrick; Eugen C Palma; John D Fisher Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Stefano Benussi; Dipak Kotecha; Anders Ahlsson; Dan Atar; Barbara Casadei; Manuel Castella; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Jeroen Hendriks; Gerhard Hindricks; Antonis S Manolis; Jonas Oldgren; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Ulrich Schotten; Bart Van Putte; Panagiotis Vardas Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Rudolph W Koster; Paul Dorian; Fred W Chapman; Paul W Schmitt; Sharon G O'Grady; Robert G Walker Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: B M Glover; S J Walsh; C J McCann; M J Moore; G Manoharan; G W N Dalzell; A McAllister; B McClements; D J McEneaney; T G Trouton; T P Mathew; A A J Adgey Journal: Heart Date: 2007-06-25 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Richard L Page; Richard E Kerber; James K Russell; Tom Trouton; Johan Waktare; Donna Gallik; Jeff E Olgin; Philippe Ricard; Gavin W Dalzell; Ramakota Reddy; Ralph Lazzara; Kerry Lee; Mark Carlson; Blair Halperin; Gust H Bardy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-06-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Venkataraman Anantharaman; Seow Yian Tay; Peter George Manning; Swee Han Lim; Terrance Siang Jin Chua; Mohan Tiru; Rabind Antony Charles; Vidya Sudarshan Journal: Open Access Emerg Med Date: 2017-01-13