Article Text

PDF
Heart rhythm disorders and pacemakers
Biphasic energy selection for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. The BEST AF Trial
  1. B M Glover1,2,
  2. S J Walsh1,
  3. C J McCann1,2,
  4. M J Moore1,2,
  5. G Manoharan1,2,
  6. G W N Dalzell1,
  7. A McAllister3,
  8. B McClements3,
  9. D J McEneaney4,
  10. T G Trouton5,
  11. T P Mathew6,
  12. A A J Adgey1,2
  1. 1
    Regional Medical Cardiology Centre, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
  2. 2
    Queens University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
  3. 3
    Department of Cardiology, Mater Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
  4. 4
    Craigavon Cardiac Centre, Craigavon Area Hospital, Craigavon, Northern Ireland, UK
  5. 5
    Department of Cardiology, Antrim Area Hospital, Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK
  6. 6
    Department of Cardiology, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK
  1. Professor A A J Adgey, Regional Medical Cardiology Centre, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6BA, Northern Ireland, UK; jennifer.adgey{at}royalhospitals.n-i.nhs.uk

Abstract

Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of an escalating energy protocol with a non-escalating energy protocol using an impedance compensated biphasic defibrillator for direct current cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods and results: This prospective multicentre randomised trial enrolled 380 patients (248 male, mean (SD) age 67 (10) years) with AF. Patients were randomised to either an escalating energy protocol (protocol A: 100 J, 150 J, 200 J, 200 J), or a non-escalating energy protocol (protocol B: 200 J, 200 J, 200 J). Cardioversion was performed using an impedance compensated biphasic waveform. First-shock success was significantly higher for those randomised to 200 J than 100 J (71% vs 48%; p<0.01) and for patients with a body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m2 (75% vs 44%; p = 0.01). In patients with a normal BMI there was no significant difference in first-shock success. There was also no significant difference between subsequent shocks or overall success. The use of a non-escalating protocol (protocol B) resulted in fewer shocks but with a higher cumulative energy. There was no difference in duration of procedure, amount of sedation administered or post-shock erythema between the groups.

Conclusion: First-shock success was significantly higher, particularly in patients with a BMI >25 kg/m2, when a non-escalating initial 200 J energy was selected. The overall success, duration of procedure and amount of sedation administered, however, did not differ significantly between the two protocols.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Funding: BMG is a recipient of a grant from Northern Ireland Chest Heart and Stroke Association.

  • Ethics approval: Approval was obtained from the Queen’s University of Belfast Research Ethics Committee.

    See Editorial, p 830

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Editorial
    Guy Haywood Bogdan Nuta