Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation: the results of an international randomized,double-blind multicenter trial

OBJECTIVES: This study compared a biphasic waveform with a conventional monophasic waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Biphasic shock waveforms have been demonstrated to be superior to monophasic shocks for termination of ventricular fibrillation, but data regarding biphasic shocks for conversion of AF are still emerging. METHODS: In an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, we compared the effectiveness of damped sine wave monophasic versus impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic shocks for the cardioversion of AF. Patients received up to five shocks, as necessary for conversion: 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. RESULTS: Analysis included 107 monophasic and 96 biphasic patients. The success rate was higher for biphasic than for monophasic shocks at each of the three shared energy levels (100 J: 60% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% vs. 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001). Through four shocks, at a maximum of 200 J, biphasic performance was similar to monophasic performance at 360 J (91% vs. 85%, p = 0.29). Biphasic patients required fewer shocks (1.7 +/- 1.0 vs. 2.8 +/- 1.2, p < 0.0001) and lower total energy delivered (217 +/- 176 J vs. 548 +/- 331 J, p < 0.0001). The biphasic shock waveform was also associated with a lower frequency of dermal injury (17% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For the cardioversion of AF, a biphasic shock waveform has greater efficacy, requires fewer shocks and lower delivered energy, and results in less dermal injury than a monophasic shock waveform.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.)     

Comparison of the rectilinear biphasic waveform with the monophasic damped sine waveform for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter

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.     

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.     

Reduced Cardioversion Thresholds for Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Using the Rectilinear Biphasic Waveform

Background: The RLB waveform has been shown to be superior in overall efficacy to the MDS waveform for cardioversion of AF in one prospective study and one large retrospective analysis. However, little is known about the efficacy of the RLB waveform at lower energies.Objective: This study was undertaken to define the cardioversion thresholds for atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (FL) using the rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform and compare these to the cardioversion threshold using the conventional monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform.Methods: All patients underwent transthoracic cardioversion of persistent AF and FL. We performed step-up cardioversion thresholds for AF in 180 RLB patients and 38 MDS patients and compared those results. We also performed cardioversion threshold determinations in 39 RLB patients with typical right atrial FL. For the RLB patients, an initial energy setting of 5 Joules (J) was selected, with increasing energy steps until success, up to 200J. The MDS energy sequence was 50 up to 360J.Results: The average selected energy threshold for AF using the RLB waveform was 70.6 J (median = 50 J) versus 193.4 J (median=150 J) for the MDS waveform (p < 0.001). For FL, the average cardioversion threshold using the RLB waveform was 33.2 J (median = 20 J; p < 0.001 vs. AF with the RLB waveform).Conclusions: Our results show that the transthoracic AF cardioversion threshold using the RLB waveform is significantly lower than the MDS waveform. As expected, the cardioversion threshold for FL was significantly lower than that of AF using the RLB waveform.     

Higher Energy Monophasic DC Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Is it Time to Start at 360 Joules?

Background: Electrical direct‐current cardioversion (DCCV) has become a routine therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF), although some uncertainty remains regarding the optimal energy settings. Aims: This study examines whether the use of a higher initial energy monophasic shock of 360 joules (J) for external DCCV, in patients with persistent AF would prove more effective, yet as safe, as the use of a lower initial energy 200 J shock. Methods: A cohort of 107 patients with persistent AF was prospectively randomized to an initial synchronized DCCV shock of 360 J versus 200 J (n = 50 vs 57), followed by a similar shock sequence thereafter of four further shocks of 360 J for the two groups. In all patients the levels of troponin I (cTnI) were measured precardioversion and 18–20 hours later, the following day. In a subgroup of 36 patients in each group, the levels of creatine kinase (CK) and aspartate transaminase (AST) were measured pre‐ and 18–20 hours postcardioversion. Results: The success rate for DCCV was significantly higher in the 360 J group compared to the 200 J group (96.0% vs 75.4%, P = 0.003 ). The mean CK IU/L levels (1137.5.0 vs 2411.8, P = 0.014 ) and AST levels (39.83 vs 52.86, P = 0.010 ) were significantly lower in the 360 J group compared to the 200 J group. There was no statistical rise in cTnI (μg/L) in either group (P = 1.00 ). The average number of shocks delivered (1.84 vs 2.56, P = 0.006) was significantly less in the 360 J group than in the 200 J group, although total energy requirements for DCCV were similar for the two groups (662.4 J vs 762.4 J, P = 0.67 ). Conclusion: For patients with persistent AF the use of a higher initial‐energy monophasic shock of 360 J achieves a significantly greater success rate, with less skeletal muscle damage (and no cardiac muscle damage) as compared with the traditional starting energy of a 200 J DC shock.     

Comparison of biphasic and monophasic waveforms in epicardial atrial defibrillation

Objectives. Because biphasic waveforms have previously been shown to be more efficient than monophasic waveforms in defibrillation of the ventricle, we compared the efficiency of the two waveforms in defibrillation of the atria.Background. The development of an implantable atrial defibrillator would offer significant advantages over current approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation. Patient tolerance of atrial shocks from such a device, however, would depend critically on the deployment of an efficient waveform.Methods. Both the monophasic and biphasic shocks were of 8-ms duration, and the biphasic was a dual-capacitor waveform with equal first- and second-phase duration and leading-edge voltage. One hundred randomized atrial shocks were evaluated in 21 patients during cardiopulmonary bypass. Atrial fibrillation was induced by the application of alternating current. Atrial shocks were delivered through customized, contoured epicardial paddles applied to the posterior left atrial wall (surface area 11 cm²) and to the anterior right atrial wall (surface area 26 cm²).Results. For the monophasic waveform the delivered energy (joules) associated with 50% success (E₅₀) was 1.44 J (95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 11.2) and with 80% (E₈₀) success 3.9 J (95% CI 2.42 to 109.8); for the biphasic waveform 50% success was achieved with 0.37 J (95% CI 0.36 to 0.38) (p = NS) and 80% success with 0.57 J (95% CI 0.56 to 0.58) (p < 0.05).Conclusions. A biphasic waveform is more efficient than a monophasic waveform in atrial defibrillation. This may have implications for the development of an implantable atrial defibrillator for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in addition to improvement of elective transthoracic and endocardial cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation.     

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.     

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.