Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

LO100: Electrical vs chemical cardioversion in patients with acute atrial fibrillation: a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled clinical trial

  • F.X. Scheuermeyer (a1), G. Andolfatto (a1), J. Christenson (a1), S. Couperthwaite (a1), C. Villa-Roel (a1), K. Lobay (a1) and B.H. Rowe (a1)...

Abstract

Introduction: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) of <48 hours duration often present to Emergency Departments (ED). Electrical or chemical cardioversion can be employed to restore normal sinus rhythm (NSR). Current guidelines make no recommendations between these two methods and the management decisions are left to the discretion of the treating physician. The objective of this study was to compare these two approaches in terms of ED length of stay (LOS), success (conversion to NSR) and health related outcomes. Methods: At six western Canadian EDs, eligible adult patients were assigned to one of two groups following concealed allocation and using a centralized computer-generated randomization method: electrical cardioversion (EC) first (followed by chemical cardioversion [CC] if the primary method failed) or CC first (followed by EC if the primary method failed). Baseline evaluation/interview and 3/30 day telephone contact were completed and documented using the REDCap data-platform. Adverse events were externally adjudicated in a blinded-fashion. An intention to treat analysis was performed. Results: Overall, 84 patients participated in the study (EC: 43; CC: 41); the median age was 60 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 50, 66), and 38% were female. The baseline patient characteristics in both groups were similar. The median LOS between randomization and conversion to NSR (intervention LOS) was 1.0 hrs (IQR: 0.8, 2.7) in EC vs. 3.1 hrs (IQR: 2.0, 3.9) in CC (p<0.001); more patients in EC were discharged from the ED within 4 hours than in the CC group (65% vs. 32%; p=0.002). The majority of EC patients (84%) converted to NSR after the first attempt while half of the patients did so in the CC group (49%). No differences were observed in terms of adverse events (26% vs. 24%; mostly minimal), hospitalizations (0%), and patients’ health outcomes (physician/ED visits, admissions, stroke) and status (SF-8) at 3 and 30 days, in groups EC and CC groups, respectively. Conclusion: Electrical cardioversion was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in the LOS when compared to cardioversion using chemical management. Similarities in the proportions of success, adverse events and health outcomes between the groups would support the use of electrical shock as the first approach for cardioversion in clinical practice.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      LO100: Electrical vs chemical cardioversion in patients with acute atrial fibrillation: a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled clinical trial
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      LO100: Electrical vs chemical cardioversion in patients with acute atrial fibrillation: a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled clinical trial
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      LO100: Electrical vs chemical cardioversion in patients with acute atrial fibrillation: a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled clinical trial
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed