Biphasic Versus Monophasic Shock Waveform for Conversion of Atrial Fibrillation

Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) using traditional monophasic shock waveform is unsuccessful in up to 20% of cases, and often requires several shocks of up to 360 J. Based on the success with biphasic shock waveform in converting ventricular fibrillation, it was postulated that biphasic shocks would allow cardioversion with lower energy. In a international multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 203 patients, damped sine wave monophasic shocks were compared with impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic waveform shocks. Patients received up to five shocks: 100 J, 150 J, 200 J, a fourth shock at maximum output for the initial waveform (200 J biphasic, 360 J monophasic) and a final cross-over shock at maximum output of the alternate waveform. For each energy level, the biphasic waveform compared favorably to the monophasic waveform in successful cardioversion (100 J: 60% versus 22%, P < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% versus 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% versus 53%, p < 0.0001). Success with 200 J biphasic was equivalent to 360 J monophasic shock (91% versus 85%, p = 0.29). Patients randomized to biphasic waveform required fewer shocks and lower total energy delivered; in addition, this waveform was associated with less dermal injury and no blistering. Biphasic shocks converted AF present for less than 48 hours with 80% efficacy, but conversion of AF present for more than 48 hours and more than 1 year the success rate was only 63 and 20%, respectively. The results of this study is similar to other investigations comparing biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms for conversion of atrial fibrillation. We recommend starting with biphasic energy of 100 J for atrial fibrillation of less than 48 hours duration, but using higher energies (150 J, 200 J or greater) when AF has been present for longer periods.     

Biphasic versus monophasic cardioversion in shock-resistant atrial fibrillation:

Biphasic versus Monophasic Cardioversion. INTRODUCTION: Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation using monophasic transthoracic shocks occasionally is ineffective. Biphasic cardioversion requires less energy than monophasic cardioversion, but its efficacy in shock-resistant atrial fibrillation is unknown. Thus, we compared the efficacy of cardioversion using biphasic versus monophasic waveform shocks in patients with atrial fibrillation previously refractory to monophasic cardioversion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-six patients with prior failed monophasic cardioversion were randomized to either a 360-J monophasic damped sinusoidal shock or biphasic truncated exponential shocks at 150 J, followed by 200 J and then 360 J, if necessary. If either waveform failed, patients were crossed over to the other waveform. The primary endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients achieving sinus rhythm following initial randomized therapy. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression examined independent predictors of shock success, including patient age, sex, left atrial diameter, body mass index, drug therapy, and waveform. Twenty-eight patients were randomized to the biphasic shocks and 28 to the monophasic shocks. Sinus rhythm was restored in 61% of patients with biphasic versus 18% with monophasic shocks (P = 0.001). Seventy-eight percent success was achieved in patients who crossed over to the biphasic shock after failing monophasic cardioversion, whereas only 33% were successfully cardioverted with a monophasic shock after crossover from biphasic shock (P = 0.02). Overall, 69% of patients who received a biphasic shock at any point in the protocol were cardioverted successfully, compared to 21% with the monophasic shock (P < 0.0001). The type of shock was the strongest predictor of shock success (P = 0.0001) in multivariate logistic regression. CONCLUSION: An ascending sequence of 150-, 200-, and 360-J transthoracic biphasic cardioversion shocks are successful more often than a single 360-J monophasic shock. Thus, biphasic shocks should be the recommended configuration of choice for all cardioversions.     

Efficacy of transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation using a biphasic, truncated exponential shock waveform at variable initial shock energies

Biphasic shocks are more effective than damped sine wave monophasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion (CV) of atrial fibrillation (AF), but the optimal protocol for CV with biphasic shocks has not been defined. We conducted a prospective, randomized study of 120 consecutive patients with persistent AF to delineate the dose-response curve for CV of AF with a biphasic truncated exponential shock waveform and to identify clinical predictors of shock efficacy. Our data suggest that the initial shock energy for CV with this waveform should be 200 J if the patient weighs <90 kg and 360 J if the patient weighs >/=90 kg.     

Impact of biphasic electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation on early recurrent atrial fibrillation and shock efficacy

INTRODUCTION: Early recurrent atrial fibrillation (ERAF) after external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs in 12% to 26% of patients. Whether biphasic cardioversion has an impact on the incidence of ERAF after cardioversion of AF is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients (n = 216, mean age 66 years, 71% male, 88% with structural cardiovascular disease or hypertension) underwent cardioversion with a biphasic (Bi) or monophasic (Mo) shock waveform in randomized fashion. Energies used were 120-150-200-200 Ws (Bi) or 200-300-360-360 Ws (Mo). The two study groups (Bi vs Mo) did not differ with regard to age, sex, body mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease, left atrial diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, duration of AF fibrillation, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Mean delivered energy was significantly lower in the Bi group (Bi: 186 +/- 143 Ws vs Mo: 324 +/- 227 Ws; P < 0.001). Overall incidence of ERAF (AF relapse within 1 minute after successful cardioversion) was 8.9% and showed no difference between the two groups (Bi: 8.1% vs Mo: 9.7%, P = NS). Cardioversion was successful in 95.4% of patients. The success rate was comparable in both groups (Bi: 94.3% vs Mo 96.8%; P = NS). First shock efficacy did not differ between Bi and Mo (76.4% vs 67.7%; P = NS). Mean number of shocks were 1.4 shocks per patient in both groups. CONCLUSION: Biphasic cardioversion allows comparable success rates with significantly lower energies. However, the incidence of ERAF is not influenced by biphasic cardioversion. With the energies used, biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms are comparable with regard to first shock and cumulative shock efficacy.     

External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of biphasic vs monophasic waveform shocks.

AIMS: It is well established in transthoracic ventricular defibrillation that biphasic truncated waveform shocks are associated with superior defibrillation efficacy when compared with damped sine wave monophasic waveform shocks. The aim of this study was to explore whether biphasic waveform shocks were superior to monophasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients in whom cardioversion of AF was indicated were randomized in this prospective study, to transthoracic cardioversion with either monophasic damped sine waveform shocks or biphasic impedance compensating waveform shocks. In the group randomized to monophasic waveform shocks (27 patients), a first shock of 150 J was delivered, followed (if necessary) by a 360 J shock. In the biphasic waveform group (30 patients), the first shock had an energy of 150 J and (if necessary) a second 150 J was delivered. All shocks were delivered in the anterolateral chest pad position. Sinus rhythm was restored in 16 patients (51%) with the first monophasic shock and in 27 patients (86%) with the first biphasic shock. The difference was statistically significant (P=0.02). After the second shock, sinus rhythm was obtained in a total of 24 patients (88%) with monophasic shocks and in 28 patients (93%) with biphasic shocks. No complication was observed in either group and cardiac enzymes (CK, CKmb, troponin I, myoglobin) did not show any significant changes. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that at the same energy level of 150 J, biphasic impedance compensating waveform shocks are superior to monophasic damped sine waveform shocks cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.     

Prospective, randomized comparison of two biphasic waveforms for the efficacy and safety of transthoracic biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in commercially available biphasic waveforms. BACKGROUND: Although the superiority of biphasic over monophasic waveforms for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) is established, the relative efficacy of available biphasic waveforms is less clear. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of a biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveform and a biphasic rectilinear (BR) waveform for external cardioversion of AF. Patients (N = 188) with AF were randomized to receive transthoracic BR shocks (50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 200 J) or BTE shocks (50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 360 J). Shock strength was escalated until success or maximum energy dose was achieved. If maximum shock strength failed, patients received the maximum shock of the opposite waveform. Analysis included 141 patients (71 BR, 70 BTE; mean age 66.5 +/- 13.7. Forty-seven randomized patients were excluded because of flutter on precardioversion ECG upon blinded review (n = 25), presence of intracardiac thrombus (n = 7), or protocol deviation (n = 15). Groups were similar with regard to clinical and echocardiographic characteristics. RESULTS: The success rate was similar for the two waveforms (93% BR vs 97 BTE, P = .44), although cumulative selected and delivered energy was less in the BTE group. Only AF duration was significantly different between successful and unsuccessful patients. No significant complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Biphasic waveforms were very effective in transthoracic cardioversion of AF, and complication rates were low. No significant difference in efficacy was observed between BR and BTE waveforms. Impedance was not an important determinant of success for either biphasic waveform.     

Monophasic versus biphasic waveform shocks for atrial fibrillation cardioversion in patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy.

AIMS: With transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF), biphasic are more effective than monophasic waveforms. We sought to determine the ideal energy levels for biphasic waveforms. Methods We compared biphasic truncated exponential waveforms with monophasic damped sine waveform defibrillators, in a prospective, single-centre, randomized (1:1 ratio) study. The study included 154 patients receiving concomitant amiodarone; 77 received serial biphasic (50, 100, 150, up to 175 J) and 77 monophasic shocks (100, 200, 300, up to 360 J), as necessary. Results First-shock efficacy was similar in the two groups (57 vs. 55%, P = 0.871, respectively), as were serial-shocks (90 vs. 92%, P = 0.780). Both groups received equal numbers of shocks (1.8 +/- 1.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 1.0, P = 0.921). In both groups, serum creatine kinase levels showed a small but significant increase. The increase was, however, higher in the monophasic group. CONCLUSION: In patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy, biphasic truncated exponential shocks, using half the energy, were as effective as monophasic damped sine shocks. The biphasic scheme was not more efficacious for cardioverting AF. In our population, a first shock of at least 100 J seemed advisable with either waveform. If necessary, escalating shocks must be performed, but ideal levels of increase per shock are still uncertain for biphasic waveforms.     

Ambulatory electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation by means of biphasic versus monophasic shock delivery. A prospective randomized study

Transthoracic electrical cardioversion using a monophasic waveform is the most common method converting persistent atrial fibrillation into sinus rhythm. Recently, cardioversion with a new biphasic waveform has shown promising results for treatment of atrial fibrillation. We undertook a randomized prospective trial comparing the efficacy and safety of the two waveforms for ambulatory cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. A total of 118 consecutive patients (mean age 62 years [SD 11]) presenting with persistent atrial fibrillation (mean duration 8 months [SD 11]) for ambulatory electrical cardioversion were randomized to receive either monophasic (n = 57) or biphasic shocks (n = 61). We used a standardized step-up protocol with increasing shock energies (100-360 joules) in either group. In all patients an anterior-posterior shock electrode position was used. If sinus rhythm was not achieved with the third (360 joules) shock, cardioversion was repeated with the opposite waveform. The two groups did not differ in demographic or disease-related data. The success rate was 100% for the biphasic and 73.7% for the monophasic waveform (p < 0.001). Biphasic patients required fewer shocks (1.5 versus 2.9) and a lower mean cumulative energy (203 versus 570 joules) (p < 0.001). Twelve out of 15 unsuccessfully treated monophasic patients were converted with biphasic shocks. The success rate for all 118 patients was 97.5%. No major acute complications were observed. For ambulatory transthoracic cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation biphasic shocks are of greater efficacy and require less energy than monophasic shocks. The procedure can be performed ambulatory and is safe regardless of shock waveform used.     

Transthoracic defibrillation of short-lasting ventricular fibrillation: a randomised trial for comparison of the efficacy of low-energy biphasic rectilinear and monophasic damped sine shocks

BACKGROUND: Biphasic rectilinear shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for transthoracic atrial defibrillation and for ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiological testing.We undertook the present study to compare the efficacy of 100 J rectilinear biphasic waveform shocks with 150 J monophasic damped sine waveform shocks for transthoracic defibrillation of true ventricular fibrillation during defibrillation threshold testing (DFT).The second aim of the study was to analyse the influence of patch positions on the efficacy of defibrillation. METHODS: 50 episodes of 14 patients (age ranging from 37 to 82 years) who underwent DFT testing were randomised for back-up shocks with either a sequence of 100 and 200 J biphasic waveform, or a sequence of 150 and 360 J conventional monophasic shocks. A binary search protocol was used at implantation and before hospital discharge. Patients were also randomised to an anteroposterior position versus a right-anterior-apical position. A crossover was performed between implantation and pre-hospital discharge for biphasic versus monophasic sequence as well as for the 2 different positions. RESULTS: After failed internal shocks, 27 episodes were treated with biphasic, and 23 with monophasic shocks.The first attempt by the external device did not terminate II episodes (2 biphasic, 9 monophasic).The first shock efficacy was significantly greater with biphasic than with monophasic shocks (p < 0.02).The overall success rate was 93% with biphasic shocks and 64% with monophasic shocks. In multivariate regression analysis including patch position, arrhythmia duration, type of waveform, testing order and session, only waveform was associated with successful defibrillation (p < 0.02). CONCLUSION: For transthoracic defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation, low-energy rectilinear biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks.The position of the defibrillation shock pads has no influence on the biphasic shock efficacy, but anteroposterior pad position is more effective using monophasic shocks.     

Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. ZOLL Investigators.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock. RESULTS: First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 +/- 1 vs. 33 +/- 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance < 70 ohms (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance > or = 70 ohms (99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.     

Novel rectangular biphasic and monophasic waveforms delivered by a radiofrequency-powered defibrillator compared with conventional capacitor-based waveforms in transvenous cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of novel low-tilt biphasic waveforms in transvenous cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF), delivered by a radiofrequency-powered defibrillator. METHODS AND RESULTS: The investigation was performed in three phases in an animal model of AF: a feasibility and efficacy study (in 10 adult Large White Landrace swine), comparison with low-tilt monophasic and standard capacitor-based waveforms, and an assessment of sequential shocks delivered over several pathways (in 15 adult Suffolk sheep). Defibrillation electrodes were positioned transvenously under fluoroscopic control in the high lateral right atrium and distal coronary sinus. When multiple defibrillation pathways were tested, a third electrode was also attached to the lower interatrial septum. The electrodes were then connected to a radiofrequency (RF)-powered defibrillator or a standard defibrillator. After confirmation of successful induction of sustained AF, defibrillation was attempted. Percentage success was calculated from the effects of all shocks delivered to all the animals within each set of experiments. Of the low-tilt (RF) biphasic waveforms delivered during internal atrial cardioversion, 100% success was achieved with a 6/6 ms 100/-50 V waveform (1.45+/-0.01 J). This waveform was similar in efficacy to low-tilt (RF) monophasic waveforms (88 vs. 92% success, 1.58+/-0.01 vs. 2.67+/-0.03 J; P=NS; delivered energy 41% lower) and superior to equivalent voltage standard monophasic (50% success, 0.67+/-0.00 J; P<0.001) and biphasic waveforms (72% success, 0.69+/-0.00 J; P=0.03). Sequential shocks delivered over dual pathways did not improve the efficacy of low-tilt biphasic waveforms. CONCLUSION: A low-tilt biphasic waveform from a RF-powered defibrillator (6/6 ms 100/-50 V) is more efficacious than standard monophasic or biphasic waveforms (equivalent voltage) and is similar in efficacy to low-tilt monophasic waveforms.     

Defibrillation efficacy and pain perception of two biphasic waveforms for internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Efficacy and Pain Perception of Two Biphasic Waveforms. INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the influence of the peak voltage of waveforms used for internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation on defibrillation efficacy and pain perception. A low peak voltage biphasic waveform generated by a 500-microF capacitor with 40% tilt was compared to a standard biphasic waveform generated by a 60-microF capacitor with 80% tilt. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 19 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (79% male, age 55 +/- 11 years, 21% with heart disease), the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) was determined during deep sedation with midazolam for both waveforms in a randomized fashion using a step-up protocol. Internal cardioversion with a single lead (shock vector: coronary sinus to right atrium) was successful in 18 (95%) of 19 patients. ADFT energy and peak voltage were significantly lower for the low-voltage waveform (2.1 +/- 2.4 J vs 3.5 +/- 3.9 J, P < 0.01; 100 +/- 53 V vs 290 +/- 149 V, P < 0.01). Sedation then was reversed with flumazenil after ADFT testing. Two shocks at the ADFT (or a 3-J shock if ADFT >3 J) were administered to the patient using each waveform in random order. Pain perception was assessed using both a visual scale and a numerical score. ADFTs were above the pain threshold in 17 (94%) of 18 patients, even though the ADFT with the 500-microF waveform was <100 V in 63% of the patients. Pain perception was comparable for both waveforms (numerical score: 6.5 +/- 2.4 vs 6.3 +/- 2.6; visual scale: 5.4 +/- 2.6 vs 5.2 +/- 3.1; P = NS, 500-microF vs 60-microF). The second shock was perceived as more painful in 88% of the patients, independent of the waveform used. CONCLUSION: Despite a 66% lower peak voltage and a 40% lower energy, the 40% tilt, 500-microF capacitor biphasic waveform did not change the pain perceived by the patient during delivery of internal cardioversion shocks. Pain perception for internal cardioversion probably is not influenced by peak voltage alone and increases with the number of applied shocks.     

Initial energy setting, outcome and efficiency in direct current cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to design a more efficient protocol for the electrical cardioversion of atrial arrhythmias. BACKGROUND: Guidelines for electrical cardioversion of atrial arrhythmias recommend starting with low energy shocks, which are often ineffective. METHODS: We recorded the sequence of shocks in 1,838 attempts at cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF) and 678 attempts at cardioversion for atrial flutter. These data were used to calculate the probability of success for each shock of a standard series and the probability of success with a single shock at each intensity. In 150 cases, a rhythm strip with the time of each shock allowed us to calculate the time expended on unsuccessful shocks. RESULTS: We analyzed the effects of 5,152 shocks delivered to patients for AF and 1,238 shocks delivered to patients for atrial flutter. The probability of success on the first shock in AF of > 30 days duration was 5.5% at < 200 J, 35% at 200 J and 56% at 360 J. In atrial flutter, an initial 100 J shock worked in 68%. In AF of >30 days duration, shocks of < 200 J had a 6.1% probability of success; this fell to 2.2% with a duration >180 days. In those with AF for >180 days, the initial use of a 360 J shock was associated with the eventual use of less electrical energy than with an initial shock of < or =100 J (581 +/- 316 J vs. 758 +/- 433 J, p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSIONS: An initial energy setting of > or =360 J can achieve cardioversion of AF more efficiently in patients than traditional protocols, particularly with AF of longer duration.     

Transvenous internal cardioversion for atrial fibrillation: a randomized study on defibrillation threshold and tolerability of asymmetrical compared with symmetrical shocks.

The aim of the study was to compare, according to a randomized cross-over design, two different biphasic waveforms (6.5/2.5 ms and 3.0/3.0 ms phases duration, respectively) for low energy internal atrial cardioversion with regard to energy requirements for cardioversion and shock induced discomfort. METHODS: Nineteen patients with chronic persistent atrial fibrillation (AF)(mean duration 16+/-20 months) were submitted to internal atrial cardioversion (shock delivery between catheters in right atrium and coronary sinus, respectively) and were randomly allocated to baseline cardioversion with an asymmetrical biphasic shock (6.5/2.5 ms) or with a symmetrical biphasic shock (3.0/3.0 ms), according to a step up protocol. After baseline cardioversion, a sustained AF was reinduced and the patients crossed to the alternative waveform. The procedure was performed without routine administration of sedatives and shock induced discomfort was monitored by a subjective score (1 to 5). Sedatives or anesthetics were administered at patient's request. RESULTS: The procedure was effective in all the patients and was performed without need for sedatives/anesthetics in 17/19 patients (89%). Leading edge voltage of effective shocks resulted lower for asymmetrical shocks compared to symmetrical shocks (290+/-76 vs. 337+/-104 V, P<0.001) with no statistically significant differences in delivered energy (7.74+/-4.25 vs. 8.65+/-5.94 J). Moreover shock induced discomfort resulted lower for asymmetrical shocks compared to symmetrical (pain score=4.18+/-0.73 vs. 4.59+/-0.62, P<0.02). Shock impedence of effective shocks was 59+/-10 ohms for both waveforms. No significant complications occurred during the procedure and no ventricular arrhythmia was observed after atrial cardioversion. Transient bradycardia requiring support ventricular pacing was observed in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of biphasic asymmetrical shocks (6.5/2.5 ms) results in lower leading edge voltage of effective shocks and better patients tolerability compared with conventional biphasic symmetrical shocks (3.0/3.0 ms). These findings are of interest both for transvenous internal cardioversion of chronic persistent AF and for implantable atrial defibrillators.     

Internal Cardioversion of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Using Rectilinear Biphasic Waveform

Internal electrical cardioversion is currently used in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation resistant to external electrical cardioversion. In external cardioversion, biphasic waveforms have shown a greater efficacy than monomorphic waveforms. The present study aimed to test the safety and efficacy of rectilinear biphasic waveform in converting patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm using internal electrical cardioversion, and to compare it with that of classical monophasic waveform. Twenty-seven consecutive patients with persistent AF received 31 internal cardioversions, using monophasic waveform in 11 (group I), and rectilinear biphasic waveform in 20 cases (group II). Baseline patients characteristics were similar in both groups. Multipolar catheters were positioned in the distal coronary sinus and in the high right atrium. Synchronised shocks were delivered using an escalating protocol of 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 50 Joules. In group I, 1 patient was resistant to maximal energy (success rate 91%). The mean energy of the maximal shock was 18 ± 13 J. In group II, all patients were converted to sinus rhythm. The mean energy of the maximal shock was 9 ± 5 J (p < 0.01 vs. group I). No significant complications occurred. At 3 months follow-up, 45% of group I and 60% of group II patients remained in sinus rhythm (p = NS).We conclude that internal cardioversion using rectilinear biphasic waveform is feasible and safe, and requires less energy than classical monophasic waveforms.     

Effect of shock polarity on the efficacy of transthoracic atrial defibrillation

Background The energy requirement for internal ventricular defibrillation is reduced by reversal of shock polarity. The influence of shock polarity on the efficacy of transthoracic atrial defibrillation is unknown. Methods This prospective, randomized study enrolled 110 consecutive patients who were referred for elective cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). The electrodes were placed in the anteroposterior position. The patients were randomized to receive either standard (anterior pad = cathode) or reversed polarity (anterior pad = anode) shocks with a damped sinusoidal monophasic waveform. A step-up protocol was used to estimate the cardioversion threshold. The initial shock energy was 50 J, with subsequent increments to 100, 200, 300, and 360 J in the event of cardioversion failure. Results Sixty-four percent of the patient population were men, with a mean age of 66 ± 13 years and a mean duration of AF of 242 ± 556 days. The overall success rates of cardioversion were 84% for standard polarity and 78% for reversed polarity (P not significant). Among the patients who were successfully cardioverted, the mean atrial defibrillation threshold was 198 ± 103 J for standard polarity and 212 ± 107 J for reversed polarity (P not significant). Conclusions Reversal of shock polarity does not improve transthoracic cardioversion efficacy with a standard damped sinusoidal monophasic waveform. Alternate strategies should be considered for patients who fail external cardioversion, such as adjunctive pharmacologic treatment, use of a biphasic shock waveform, or internal cardioversion. (Am Heart J 2002;143:541-5.)     

Four years experience of a nurse-led elective cardioversion service within a district general hospital setting.

AIMS: External direct current cardioversion is an effective method of restoring sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with persistent atrial arrhythmias. Increasing demand for hospital beds, together with a reduction in junior doctors' hours, has adversely affected cardioversion provision. A regular nurse-led cardioversion service conducted in a dedicated hospital day-unit was introduced to resolve these constraints. There are limited data on the safety or efficacy of such a service. METHODS AND RESULTS: All cardioversions between October 2000 and October 2004 were performed by an appropriately trained specialist nurse, under general anaesthesia. Patients attended a pre-assessment clinic. Energy requirements for initial and subsequent defibrillations were guided by a local protocol in accordance with the guidelines from American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology. Rectilinear biphasic defibrillation was introduced in January 2004 with an appropriate protocol amendment. In the absence of complications, the aim was to discharge patients the same day. A total of 578 cardioversions (475 monophasic; 103 biphasic) were performed on 464 patients [72.1% male, mean (+/- SD) age 67.8 +/- 9.4 years] with atrial fibrillation (AF) (89.7%) and atrial flutter (10.3%). SR was restored in 84.0 and 100% of patients with AF and atrial flutter, respectively, which increased to 90.2 and 100% following the introduction of biphasic defibrillation. Biphasic shocks cardioverted AF with less energy (163 +/- 22 vs. 289 +/- 81 J) and less cumulative energy (230 +/- 139 vs. 455+/-255 J) than monophasic (P < 0.001 for both), despite no difference in the duration of AF (P = 0.26) or patient age (P = 0.78). Two patients required hospital admission due to transient bradycardia; both were discharged within 72 h, without the need for permanent pacing. A total of 99.6% of patients was discharged home the same day; there were no deaths. CONCLUSION: The provision of a nurse-led elective cardioversion service is feasible and effective, without compromising safety.     

Increasing fibrillation duration enhances relative asymmetrical biphasic versus monophasic defibrillator waveform efficacy

Biphasic waveforms reduce defibrillation threshold compared with corresponding monophasic waveforms. However, effects of fibrillation duration on relative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic waveforms are unknown. This study used a newly developed defibrillation model, the isolated right- and left-sided working rabbit heart, with epicardial defibrillation electrodes, to compare threshold for a monophasic waveform (5 msec rectangular) and an asymmetrical biphasic waveform (5 msec each pulse, V2 = 50% V1). Mean voltage defibrillation threshold (V50) was determined from sigmoidal probability of successful defibrillation versus shock intensity curves after 5, 15, and 30 seconds of fibrillation in a paired study with 10 hearts. Results showed that biphasic waveforms had significantly lower voltage and energy thresholds at all fibrillation durations and that their relative efficacy improved with increasing fibrillation duration. Biphasic voltage threshold was 38.2 +/- 2.2, 44.7 +/- 4.8, and 46.6 +/- 3.2 V after 5, 15, and 30 seconds of fibrillation compared with monophasic thresholds of 51.7 +/- 4.4 (p less than 0.002), 63.0 +/- 7.6 (p less than 0.05), and 72.1 +/- 3.9 V (p less than 0.005). Biphasic waveform energy threshold was 0.67 that for the monophasic waveform after 5 seconds of fibrillation (0.12 +/- 0.01 versus 0.18 +/- 0.03 J, p less than 0.05). The ratio between biphasic waveform threshold and monophasic waveform threshold (B/M) decreased to 0.62 at 15 seconds. At 30 seconds, B/M was 0.52 (0.17 +/- 0.02 versus 0.33 +/- 0.04 J, p less than 0.02). This study also showed that biphasic waveform threshold was a nonlinear function of monophasic waveform threshold so that improved biphasic defibrillator waveform efficacy was greatest for hearts having higher monophasic thresholds.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A randomized trial comparing monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Background

We compared efficacy of and pain felt after biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks in patients undergoing external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

Patients with AF were randomized to BTE or MDS waveform cardioversion. Successive shocks were delivered at 70, 100, 200, and 360 J until successful cardioversion, with one 360 J attempt of the alternate waveform when all 4 shocks failed. Success was determined by blinded over-read of electrocardiograms. Peak current was calculated from energy and impedance. Patients rated their pain at 1 and 24 hours after cardioversion.

Results

Fourteen of 37 (38%) patients treated with MDS and 34 of 35 (97%) treated with BTE shocks were cardioverted at ≤200 J (P < .0001). Success rates of MDS versus BTE shocks were 5.4% versus 60% for 70 J, 19% versus 80% for ≤100 J, and 86% versus 97% for ≤360 J. BTE shocks cardioverted with less peak current (14.0 ± 4.3 vs 39.5 ± 11.2 A, P < .0001), less energy (97 ± 47 vs 278 ± 120 J, P < .0001), and less cumulative energy (146 ± 116 vs 546 ± 265 J, P < .0001). Patients felt less pain after BTE than MDS shocks at 1 hour (P < .0001) and 24 hours (P < .0001) after cardioversion.

Conclusion

This BTE waveform is superior to the MDS waveform for cardioversion of AF, requiring much less energy and current, and causing less postprocedural pain.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two biphasic defibrillator waveforms for the conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm

The overall efficacy of transthoracic biphasic shocks delivered for conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) has been demonstrated. We compared 2 different energy waveforms, either the biphasic rectilinear (BRL) waveform or the biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveform, in the conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. The relation between energy required for the conversion of AF, the type of biphasic waveform, and patient characteristics were examined. Serum levels of cardiac troponin I were measured before and after cardioversion, as well as postprocedural skin erythema and discomfort. In this prospective trial, 101 patients (mean age 61 +/- 15 years, 72 men [71%]) referred for elective electrical cardioversion of AF were randomized to either a BTE or a BRL device. Shocks were delivered in a step-up fashion beginning with 50 J (then 100 J, 200 J, repeat 200 J, and then crossover to 360 J). One hundred patients were successfully converted to sinus rhythm (99% success rate). There was no difference in efficacy at any energy level used, regardless of the duration of the arrhythmia. In addition, there was no difference in cumulative success. Troponin I did not significantly increase after cardioversion, regardless of the total energy used. A positive correlation between skin erythema and skin discomfort after shock (24 to 48 hours) was seen with increasing cumulative energies. There was also a positive trend toward increasing energy requirements as chest circumference and body mass index increased. Thus, biphasic waveforms are safe and effective at converting AF to sinus rhythm. In this study population, there was no clinical difference between the BRL and the BTE waveforms.