Anterior–Lateral Versus Anterior–Posterior Electrode Position for Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation

Author:

Schmidt Anders Sjørslev12,Lauridsen Kasper Glerup12,Møller Dorthe Svenstrup3,Christensen Per Dahl3,Dodt Karen Kaae4,Rickers Hans1,Løfgren Bo125ORCID,Albertsen Andi Eie3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Internal Medicine, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark (A.S.S., K.G.L., H.R., B.L.).

2. Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark (A.S.S., K.G.L., B.L.).

3. Department of Cardiology, Viborg Regional Hospital, Denmark (D.S.M., P.D.C., A.E.A.).

4. Department of Internal Medicine, Horsens Regional Hospital, Denmark (K.K.D.).

5. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University (B.L.).

Abstract

Background: Smaller randomized studies have reported conflicting results regarding the optimal electrode position for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. However, anterior–posterior electrode positioning is widely used as a standard and believed to be superior to anterior–lateral electrode positioning. Therefore, we aimed to compare anterior–lateral and anterior–posterior electrode positioning for cardioverting atrial fibrillation in a multicenter randomized trial. Methods: In this multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for elective cardioversion to either anterior–lateral or anterior–posterior electrode positioning. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after the first shock. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after up to 4 shocks escalating to maximum energy. Safety outcomes were any cases of arrhythmia during or after cardioversion, skin redness, and patient-reported periprocedural pain. Results: We randomized 468 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 126 patients (54%) assigned to the anterior–lateral electrode position and in 77 patients (33%) assigned to the anterior–posterior electrode position (risk difference, 22 percentage points [95% CI, 13–30]; P <0.001). The number of patients in sinus rhythm after the final cardioversion shock was 216 (93%) assigned to anterior–lateral electrode positioning and 200 (85%) assigned to anterior–posterior electrode positioning (risk difference, 7 percentage points [95% CI, 2–12]). There were no significant differences between groups in any safety outcomes. Conclusions: Anterior–lateral electrode positioning was more effective than anterior–posterior electrode positioning for biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. There were no significant differences in any safety outcome. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03817372.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3