Impedance compensated biphasic waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a multi-centre comparison of antero-apical and antero-posterior pad positions.

AIMS: To compare the success rate for transthoracic direct current cardioversion (DCC) of atrial fibrillation (AF) with antero-posterior (AP) and antero-apical (AA) electrode positions using an impedance compensated biphasic (ICB) waveform. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three-hundred and seven patients [mean age 66 (SD+/-13), 195 male] with AF were recruited in three centres. Patients were randomized to an AA (n=150) or AP (n=144) pad position. Thirteen patients with implanted pacemakers were defaulted to the AP pad position. Cardioversion was performed using an ICB waveform with a 70, 100, 150, and 200 J energy selection protocol. If the fourth shock was unsuccessful, the pads were crossed over to the alternative position for a final 200 J shock. Shock 1 was successful in 54/150 (36%) AA and 45/144 (31%) AP patients, whereas success was achieved by shock 2 in 99/150 (66%) AA and 74/144 (51%) AP, by shock 3 in 123/150 (82%) AA and 109/144 (76%) AP, and by shock 4 in 143/150 (95%) AA and 127/144 (88%) AP and after cross-over in 144/150 (96%) AA and 135/144 (94%) AP. Overall success rate was higher than expected at 95%. Pad position was not associated significantly with success. There was a trend towards an improved outcome with the AA configuration (P=0.05). CONCLUSION: The influence of pad position for DCC of AF may be less pertinent with ICB waveforms than with monophasic waveforms.

Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation: the results of an international randomized, double-blind multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared a biphasic waveform with a conventional monophasic waveform for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Biphasic shock waveforms have been demonstrated to be superior to monophasic shocks for termination of ventricular fibrillation, but data regarding biphasic shocks for conversion of AF are still emerging. METHODS: In an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, we compared the effectiveness of damped sine wave monophasic versus impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic shocks for the cardioversion of AF. Patients received up to five shocks, as necessary for conversion: 100 J, 150 J, 200 J, a fourth shock at maximum output for the initial waveform (200 J biphasic, 360 J monophasic) and a final cross-over shock at maximum output of the alternate waveform. RESULTS: Analysis included 107 monophasic and 96 biphasic patients. The success rate was higher for biphasic than for monophasic shocks at each of the three shared energy levels (100 J: 60% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% vs. 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% vs. 53%, p < 0.0001). Through four shocks, at a maximum of 200 J, biphasic performance was similar to monophasic performance at 360 J (91% vs. 85%, p = 0.29). Biphasic patients required fewer shocks (1.7 +/- 1.0 vs. 2.8 +/- 1.2, p < 0.0001) and lower total energy delivered (217 +/- 176 J vs. 548 +/- 331 J, p < 0.0001). The biphasic shock waveform was also associated with a lower frequency of dermal injury (17% vs. 41%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: For the cardioversion of AF, a biphasic shock waveform has greater efficacy, requires fewer shocks and lower delivered energy, and results in less dermal injury than a monophasic shock waveform.