Journals / Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of Biphasic or Monophasic Waveform Cardioversion in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Atriyum Fibrilasyonu Hastalarında Bifazik veya Monofazik Dalga Formuyla Kardiyoversiyonun Karşılaştırılması

Pages
18–24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a sequel, it is more appropriate using biphasic shock waveform defibrillators for ECV.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cardioversion could be performed pharmacological or D/C electrical (ECV) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We enrolled 50 patients with atrial fibrillation more than 48 h. who were decided to perform electrical cardioversion therapy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a sequel, it is more appropriate using biphasic shock waveform defibrillators for ECV.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Cardioversion could be performed pharmacological or D/C electrical (ECV) in patients with atrial fibrillation. A biphasic shock waveform has greater efficacy, requires lower delivered energy, than a monophasic waveform for conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. We aimed to evaluate efficacy of a biphasic shock waveform in comparison with a monophasic shock waveform ECV for conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. We enrolled 50 patients with atrial fibrillation more than 48 h. who were decided to perform electrical cardioversion therapy. Cardioversions were performed transthoracic antero-lateral position of the paddles with a monophasic shock waveform or a biphasic shock waveform. Mean age was 64,8 ± 10,5 in our study population and 22 of them was male. A biphasic shock waveform has greater efficacy than a monophasic shock waveform for conversion of AF to sinus rhythm without any statistical significance. Cumulative delivered energy was 682±462 joule in monophasic shock waveform group, and was 234±211 joule in biphasic shock waveform group (p<0,001). It was shown that a biphasic shock waveform has greater efficacy, requires lower delivered energy in AF patients, than a monophasic waveform for conversion to sinus rhythm. As a sequel, it is more appropriate using biphasic shock waveform defibrillators for ECV.

Özet

Atriyum fibrilasyonu hastalarında kardiyoversiyon işlemi farmakolojik veya elektriki olarak uygulanabilir. Elektriki kardiyoversiyonda (EKV) bifazik dalga formu kullanılması, monofazik dalga kullanılmasına göre daha düşük enerji gerektirdiği ve daha yüksek sinüs ritmine (SR) döndürme oranı tespit edilmiştir. Biz de AF ritmini SR’ne döndürmede kullanılan elektriki kardiyoversiyon işleminde monofazik dalga formu veya bifazik dalga etkinliğini karşılaştırmak amacıyla çalışma planladık. Çalışmaya 48 saatten daha uzun süreli atriyum fibrilasyonu ritminde olduğu tespit edilen, elektriki kardiyoversiyon endikasyonu konmuş 50 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Kardiyoversiyon işlemi transtorasik antero-lateral yerleştirilen elektrotlarla monofazik veya bifazik dalga formuyla yapıldı. Çalışmaya alınan hastaların yaş ortalaması 64,8 ± 10,5 ve 50 hastanın 22’si erkekti. Bifazik dalga formlu defibrilatörle yapılan kardiyoversiyonun SR sağlamadaki başarısı monofazik dalga formlu defibrilatörlere göre daha yüksek saptanmakla birlikte istatistiki olarak anlamlı değildi. Hastalara verilen kümülatif enerji düzeyleri monofazik dalga formu ile EKV uygulanan olgularda 682±462 joule, bifazik dalga formu ile EKV uygulanan olgularda 234±211 joule olarak saptandı (p<0,001). AF li hastalarda EKV için bifazik dalga formu kullanılmasının, monofazik dalga formu kullanılmasına göre daha düşük enerji kullanıldığı ve SR sağlamada daha başarılı olduğu gözlenmiştir. Bu nedenle AF li hastalarda EKV işleminde bifazik defibrilatörlerin kullanılmasının daha doğru bir yaklaşım olacağını düşünmekteyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

DOKSÖZ, A., MERT, G. Ö., MERT, K. U. (2018). Comparison of Biphasic or Monophasic Waveform Cardioversion in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2, 18–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/287833

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Toso E, Iannaccone M, Caponi D, Rotondi F, Santoro A, Gallo C, Scaglione M, Gaita F. Does antiarrhythmic drugs premedication improve electrical cardioversion success in persistent atrial fibrillation? J Electrocardiol. 2017 May -Jun; 50(3):294-300.
  2. Singh BN, Singh SN, Reda DJ, Tang XC, Lopez B, Harris CL, et al. For the sotalol amiodarone atrial fibrillation efficacy trial (SAFE-T) investigators* amiodarone versus sotalol for atrial fibrillation. Med 2005;352:1861–72.
  3. Channer KS, Birchall A, Steeds RP, Walters SJ, Yeo WW, West JN, et al. A randomized placebocontrolled trial of pre-treatment and short- or long term maintenance therapy with amiodarone supporting DC cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2004;25:144–50.
  4. Elhendy A, Gentile F, Khandheria BK, Hammill SC, Gersh BJ, Bailey KR, et al. Facilitating transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation with ibutilide pretreatment. Med 1999;340:1849–54.
  5. Vitor S. Kawabata, Caio B. Vianna, Miguel A. Moretti, Maria M. Gonzalez, João F. Ferreira, Sergio Timerman, Luiz A. Cesar; Monophasic versus biphasic waveform shocks for atrial fibrillation cardioversion in patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy, Europace, 2007; 9:143–146.
  6. Mortensen K, Risius T, Schwemer TF, Aydin MA, Köster R, Klemm HU, Lutomsky B, Meinertz T, Ventura R, Willems S. Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial. Cardiology. 2008;111(1):57-62
  7. Alihanoğlu Yİ, Kılıç Dİ, Yıldız BS. Cardioversion and defibrillation. Pam Med J 2015;8(2):156-164.
  8. Deakin CD, Ambler JJ. Post-shock myocardial stunning: a prospective randomised double-blind comparison of monophasic and biphasicwaveforms. Resuscitation 2006;68:329-333.
  9. Botto GL, Politi A, Bonini W, Broffoni T, Bonatti R. External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: role of paddle position on technical efficacy and energy requirements. Heart. 1999;82:726-730.
  10. Lown B, Kleiger R, Wolff G. The Technique of Cardioversion. Am Heart J. 1964;67:282-284.
  11. Chen PS, Shibata N, Dixon EG, et al. Activation during ventricular defibrillation in open-chest dogs. Evidence of complete cessation and regeneration of ventricular fibrillation after unsuccessful shocks. J Clin Invest. 1986;77:810-823.
  12. Witkowski FX, Penkoske PA, Plonsey R. Mechanism of cardiac defibrillation in open-chest dogs with unipolar DC-coupled simultaneous activation and shock potential recordings. Circulation. 1990;82:244-260.
  13. Platia EV, Michelson EL, Port