Personalizing configuration for atrial fibrillation external electrical cardioversion to improve first shock efficacy.
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 1558-2035
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101259752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
entrez:
13
9
2022
pubmed:
14
9
2022
medline:
16
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite the common use of biphasic electrical cardioversion (ECV) to convert atrial fibrillation (AF), we lack definite recommendations on electrode configuration. We adopted a quasi-experimental design enrolling all candidates to ECV for AF. In the first stage, two units were involved, one using antero-apical pads (AAP) and the second antero-posterior adhesive patches (APP). These data enabled the creation of a decision algorithm to personalize the ECV approach, which was subsequently validated during the second stage. A total of 492 patients were enrolled overall. In the first stage, APP and AAP presented similar conversion rates (87.4 vs. 86.9% at first attempt of a step-up protocol, P = 0.661). While body surface area (BSA) ≤2.12 m2 was an independent predictor in the overall population, the two components (height and weight) acted differently in the two configurations: being height ≤1.73 m2 a significant cut-off value in the AAP subgroup, and weight <83 kg in the APP subgroup. Considering these cut-offs, we developed a decision algorithm for electrode configuration. In the second stage, algorithm validation confirmed an improvement in the first shock efficacy with respect to the results of the first stage (93.2 vs. 87.2%, P = 0.025), with a significant reduction in shock impedance (70.8 ± 15.3 vs. 81.8 ± 15.6, P < 0.001). Patients with high BSA require high energy shocks for sinus rhythm restoration with ECV. Weight seems to affect more APP configuration, while height seems to impact more for the AAP. These findings have the potential to optimize ECV in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite the common use of biphasic electrical cardioversion (ECV) to convert atrial fibrillation (AF), we lack definite recommendations on electrode configuration.
METHODS
We adopted a quasi-experimental design enrolling all candidates to ECV for AF. In the first stage, two units were involved, one using antero-apical pads (AAP) and the second antero-posterior adhesive patches (APP). These data enabled the creation of a decision algorithm to personalize the ECV approach, which was subsequently validated during the second stage.
RESULTS
A total of 492 patients were enrolled overall. In the first stage, APP and AAP presented similar conversion rates (87.4 vs. 86.9% at first attempt of a step-up protocol, P = 0.661). While body surface area (BSA) ≤2.12 m2 was an independent predictor in the overall population, the two components (height and weight) acted differently in the two configurations: being height ≤1.73 m2 a significant cut-off value in the AAP subgroup, and weight <83 kg in the APP subgroup. Considering these cut-offs, we developed a decision algorithm for electrode configuration. In the second stage, algorithm validation confirmed an improvement in the first shock efficacy with respect to the results of the first stage (93.2 vs. 87.2%, P = 0.025), with a significant reduction in shock impedance (70.8 ± 15.3 vs. 81.8 ± 15.6, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Patients with high BSA require high energy shocks for sinus rhythm restoration with ECV. Weight seems to affect more APP configuration, while height seems to impact more for the AAP. These findings have the potential to optimize ECV in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36099072
doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001352
pii: 01244665-202210000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
655-662Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.
Références
Boriani G, Diemberger I. Globalization of the epidemiologic, clinical, and financial burden of atrial fibrillation. Chest 2012; 142:1368–1370.
Boriani G, Biffi M, Diemberger I, Martignani C, Branzi A. Rate control in atrial fibrillation: choice of treatment and assessment of efficacy. Drugs 2003; 63:1489–1509.
Boriani G, Diemberger I, Biffi M, Domenichini G, Martignani C, Valzania C, et al. Electrical cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in clinical practice: predictors of long-term outcome. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61:748–756.
Wyse DG, Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, Domanski MJ, Rosenberg Y, Schron EB, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1825–1833.
Van Gelder IC, Hagens VE, Bosker HA, Kingma JH, Kamp O, Kingma T, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1834–1840.
Marrouche NF, Brachmann J, Andresen D, Siebels J, Boersma L, Jordaens L, et al. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:417–427.
Kirchhof P, Camm AJ, Goette A, Brandes A, Eckardt L, Elvan A, et al. Early rhythm-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1305–1316.
Stiell IG, Sivilotti MLA, Taljaard M, Birnie D, Vadeboncoeur A, Hohl CM, et al. Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomised trial. Lancet 2020; 395:339–349.
Diemberger I, Fantecchi E, Reggiani MLB, Martignani C, Angeletti A, Massaro G, et al. Atrial fibrillation and prediction of mortality by conventional clinical score systems according to the setting of care. Int J Cardiol 2018; 261:73–77.
Gall NP, Murgatroyd FD. Electrical cardioversion for AF-the state of the art. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30:554–567.
Lehto M, Kala R. Persistent atrial fibrillation: a population based study of patients with their first cardioversion. Int J Cardiol 2003; 92:145–150.
Okcun B, Yigit Z, Kucukoglu MS, Mutlu H, Sansoy V, Guzelsoy D, et al. Predictors for maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Echocardiography 2002; 19:351–357.
Van Gelder IC, Crijns HJ, Van Gilst WH, Verwer R, Lie KI. Prediction of uneventful cardioversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm from direct-current electrical cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation and flutter. Am J Cardiol 1991; 68:41–46.
Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2021; 42:373–498.
Zhang B, Li X, Shen D, Zhen Y, Tao A, Zhang G. Anterior-posterior versus anterior-lateral electrode position for external electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2014; 107:280–290.
Kirkland S, Stiell I, AlShawabkeh T, Campbell S, Dickinson G, Rowe BH. The efficacy of pad placement for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation/flutter: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2014; 21:717–726.
Adgey AA, Walsh SJ. Theory and practice of defibrillation: (1) Atrial fibrillation and DC conversion. Heart 2004; 90:1493–1498.
Inacio JF, da Rosa Mdos S, Shah J, Rosario J, Vissoci JR, Manica AL, et al. Monophasic and biphasic shock for transthoracic conversion of atrial fibrillation: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Resuscitation 2016; 100:66–75.
Alegret JM, Vinolas X, Sagrista J, Hernandez-Madrid A, Perez L, Sabate X, et al. Predictors of success and effect of biphasic energy on electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Europace 2007; 9:942–946.
Frick M, Frykman V, Jensen-Urstad M, Ostergren J, Rosenqvist M. Factors predicting success rate and recurrence of atrial fibrillation after first electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Clin Cardiol 2001; 24:238–244.
Sadek MM, Chaugai V, Cleland MJ, Zakutney TJ, Birnie DH, Ramirez FD. Association between transthoracic impedance and electrical cardioversion success with biphasic defibrillators: an analysis of 1055 shocks for atrial fibrillation and flutter. Clin Cardiol 2018; 41:666–670.
Gallagher MM, Yap YG, Padula M, Ward DE, Rowland E, Camm AJ. Arrhythmic complications of electrical cardioversion: relationship to shock energy. Int J Cardiol 2008; 123:307–312.
Piccinni C, Raschi E, Poluzzi E, Puccini A, Cars T, Wettermark B, et al. Trends in antiarrhythmic drug use after marketing authorization of dronedarone: comparison between Emilia Romagna (Italy) and Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 69:715–720.
Ewy GA. The optimal technique for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Clin Cardiol 1994; 17:79–84.