RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Direct current cardioversion is frequently used to return patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to sinus rhythm. Chest pressure during cardioversion may improve the efficacy of cardioversion through decreasing transthoracic impedance and increasing cardiac energy delivery. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of upfront chest pressure during direct current cardioversion for AF with anterior-posterior pad positioning. METHODS: This was a multicenter, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Recruitment occurred from 2021 to 2023. Follow-up was until hospital discharge. Recruitment occurred across 3 centers in New South Wales, Australia. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, referred for cardioversion for AF, and anticoagulation for 3 weeks or transesophageal echocardiography excluding left atrial appendage thrombus. Exclusion criteria were other arrhythmias requiring cardioversion, such as atrial flutter and atrial tachycardia. The intervention arm received chest pressure during cardioversion from the first shock. The primary efficacy outcome was total joules required per patient encounter. Secondary efficacy outcomes included first shock success, transthoracic impedance, cardioversion success, and sinus rhythm at 30 minutes post cardioversion. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were randomized, 153 to control and 158 to intervention. There was no difference in total joules applied per encounter in the control arm vs intervention arm (355.0 ± 301 J vs 413.8 ± 347 J; P = 0.19). There was no difference in first shock success, total shocks provided, average impedance, and cardioversion success. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the routine application of chest pressure for direct current cardioversion in atrial fibrillation (PRESSURE-AF [Investigating the Efficacy of Chest Pressure for Direct Current Cardioversion in Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Controlled Trial]; ACTRN12620001028998).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia (GA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is often preferred over conscious sedation (CS) to minimize patient discomfort and reduce the risk of map disruption from patient movement but may pose an additional risk to some patients with significant comorbidity or poor cardiac function. METHODS: We extracted data for 300 patients who underwent AF ablation between the years 2017 and 2019 and compared the outcomes of AF ablation with CS and GA. RESULTS: Compared to the GA group, patients were younger in the CS group (63 versus 66 years, p = 0.02), had less persistent AF (34% versus 46%, p = 0.048) and the left atrial dimension was smaller (41 versus 45 mm, p = 0.01). More patients had cryoballoon ablation (CBA) than radiofrequency (RFA) ablation in the CS than the GA group (88% CB with CS and 56% RF with GA, p < 0.01), frequency of ASA score 3-4 (higher anaesthetic risk) was less for CS than for GA (45% versus 75%, p < 0.01), and procedural duration was shorter for patients who had CS (110 versus 139 min, p < 0.001). Of the patients receiving CS, 127/182 (70%) were planned for same day discharge (SDD) and this occurred in 120 (94%) of those patients. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the groups (5.1% in GA and 6% in CS, p = 0.8). AF type was the only significant predictor of freedom from AF recurrence on multivariate analysis (HR 0.33, 0.13-0.82, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: In this study, the use of CS compared with GA for AF ablation was associated with similar outcomes and complication rates.