Comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter
- PMID: 15194019
- DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.03.006
Comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter
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.
Similar articles
-
Reduced cardioversion thresholds for atrial fibrillation and flutter using the rectilinear biphasic waveform.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005 Jul;13(2):145-50. doi: 10.1007/s10840-005-0277-2. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005. PMID: 16133842 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.Am Heart J. 2005 Feb;149(2):316-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.07.007. Am Heart J. 2005. PMID: 15846271
-
A randomized trial comparing monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.Am Heart J. 2004 May;147(5):e20. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.049. Am Heart J. 2004. PMID: 15131555 Clinical Trial.
-
Treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: Part II.Cardiol Rev. 2008 Sep-Oct;16(5):230-9. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0b013e3181723694. Cardiol Rev. 2008. PMID: 18708824 Review.
-
Oesophageal electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.Minerva Cardioangiol. 2004 Apr;52(2):73-80. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2004. PMID: 15194990 Review. English, Italian.
Cited by
-
Intracardiac atrial defibrillation.Heart Rhythm. 2007 Mar;4(3 Suppl):S51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.12.030. Epub 2006 Dec 28. Heart Rhythm. 2007. PMID: 17336885 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The role of biphasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2005 Oct 1;5(4):289-95. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2005. PMID: 16943878 Free PMC article.
-
Reduced cardioversion thresholds for atrial fibrillation and flutter using the rectilinear biphasic waveform.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005 Jul;13(2):145-50. doi: 10.1007/s10840-005-0277-2. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005. PMID: 16133842 Clinical Trial.
-
Reduced motion external defibrillation: Reduced subject motion with equivalent defibrillation efficiency validated in swine.Heart Rhythm. 2022 Jul;19(7):1165-1173. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.02.021. Epub 2022 Feb 28. Heart Rhythm. 2022. PMID: 35240311 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous