Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 Sep;89(9):1032-4.
doi: 10.1136/heart.89.9.1032.

Comparison of monophasic and biphasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparison of monophasic and biphasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

M Scholten et al. Heart. 2003 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation between monophasic damped sine waveform and rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks at a high initial energy level and with a conventional paddle position.

Design: Prospective randomised study.

Patients and setting: 227 patients admitted for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation to a tertiary referral centre.

Results: 70% of 109 patients treated with an initial 200 J monophasic shock were cardioverted to sinus rhythm, compared with 80% of 118 patients treated with an initial 120 J biphasic shock (NS). After the second shock (360 J monophasic or 200 J biphasic), 90% of the patients were in sinus rhythm in both groups. The mean cumulative energy used for successful cardioversion was 306 J for monophasic shocks and 159 J for biphasic shocks (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: A protocol using monophasic waveform shocks in a 200-360 J sequence has the same efficacy (90%) as a protocol using rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks in a 120-200 J sequence. This equal efficacy is achieved with a significantly lower mean delivered energy level using the rectilinear biphasic shock waveform. The potential advantage of lower energy delivery for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation needs further study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study protocol and data on shock efficacy (%).

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Levy S, Breithardt G, Campbell RW, et al. Atrial fibrillation: current knowledge and recommendations for management. Working group on arrhythmias of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 1998;19:1294–320. - PubMed
    1. Mittal S, Ayati S, Stein KM, et al. Transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of rectilinear biphasic versus damped sine wave monophasic shocks. Circulation 2000;101:1282–7. - PubMed
    1. Ricard P, Levy S, Boccara G, et al. External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of biphasic vs monophasic waveform shocks. Europace 2001;3:96–9. - PubMed
    1. Ricard P, Levy S, Trigano J, et al. Prospective assessment of the minimum energy needed for external electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:815–16. - PubMed
    1. Fain ES, Sweeney MB, Franz MR. Improved internal defibrillation efficacy with a biphasic waveform. Am Heart J 1989;117:358–64. - PubMed