Is delayed cardioversion the better approach in recent-onset atrial fibrillation? No

Abstract

Symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cause of emergency department (ED) referrals. In case of hemodynamic stability, the choice to either perform early cardioversion (pharmacologic or electrical) or to prescribe rate-lowering drugs and differ any attempts to restore sinus rhythm (i.e., wait-and-see approach) has been widely debated. Results of the recent Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7-Acute Cardioversion versus Wait and See (RACE 7 ACWAS) have been considered a strong argument in favor of the wait-and-see approach. In this debate, we discuss several issues that would support early cardioversion, ranging from patients' satisfaction and costs to concerns about safety. Furthermore, the wait-and-see approach may translate into a missed opportunity to encourage widespread use of a "pill-in-the-pocket" home treatment: this underused option could allow rapid solving of many AF episodes, potentially avoiding future ED referrals. Our opinion is that a delayed cardioversion may introduce unneeded complications in the straightforward management of a common clinical problem. Therefore, early cardioversion should continue to be the preferred option because of its proven efficacy, safety and convenience.

Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Cardioversion; Pill-in-the-pocket; Rate control; Rhythm control; Wait-and-see.