Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial

Standard

Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial. / Mortensen, Kai; Risius, Tim; Schwemer, Tjark F; Aydin, Muhammet Ali; Köster, Ralf; Klemm, Hanno U; Lutomsky, Boris; Meinertz, Thomas; Ventura, Rodolfo; Willems, Stephan.

In: CARDIOLOGY, Vol. 111, No. 1, 2008, p. 57-62.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Journal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Mortensen, K, Risius, T, Schwemer, TF, Aydin, MA, Köster, R, Klemm, HU, Lutomsky, B, Meinertz, T, Ventura, R & Willems, S 2008, 'Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial', CARDIOLOGY, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000113429

APA

Mortensen, K., Risius, T., Schwemer, T. F., Aydin, M. A., Köster, R., Klemm, H. U., Lutomsky, B., Meinertz, T., Ventura, R., & Willems, S. (2008). Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial. CARDIOLOGY, 111(1), 57-62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000113429

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{1857b3e90bb243448a0f3196d252ef62,
title = "Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: External cardioversion is effective to terminate persistent atrial flutter. Biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation and atrial fibrillation cardioversion. The purpose of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rectilinear biphasic versus standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks in symptomatic patients with typical atrial flutter.METHODS: 135 consecutive patients were screened, 95 (70 males, mean age 62 +/- 13 years) were included. Patients were randomly assigned to a monophasic or biphasic cardioversion protocol. Forty-seven patients randomized to the monophasic protocol received sequential shocks of 100, 150, 200, 300 and 360 J. Forty-eight patients with the biphasic protocol received 50, 75, 100, 150 or 200 J.RESULTS: First-shock efficacy with 50-Joule, biphasic shocks (23/48 patients, 48%) was significantly greater than with the 100-Joule, monophasic waveform (13/47 patients, 28%, p = 0.04). The cumulative second-shock efficacy with the 50- and 75-Joule, biphasic waveform (39/48 patients, 81%) was significantly greater than with the 100- and 150-Joule, monophasic waveform (25/47 patients, 53%, p < 0.05). The cumulative efficacy for the higher energy levels showed naturally no significant difference between the two groups. The amount of the mean delivered energy was significantly lower in the biphasic group (76 +/- 39 J) compared to the monophasic one (177 +/- 78 J, p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: For transthoracic cardioversion of typical atrial flutter, biphasic shocks have greater efficacy and the mean delivered current is lower than for monophasic shocks. Therefore, biphasic cardioversion with lower starting energies should be recommended.",
keywords = "Aged, Atrial Flutter/therapy, Electric Countershock/instrumentation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome",
author = "Kai Mortensen and Tim Risius and Schwemer, {Tjark F} and Aydin, {Muhammet Ali} and Ralf K{\"o}ster and Klemm, {Hanno U} and Boris Lutomsky and Thomas Meinertz and Rodolfo Ventura and Stephan Willems",
note = "(c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1159/000113429",
language = "English",
volume = "111",
pages = "57--62",
journal = "CARDIOLOGY",
issn = "0008-6312",
publisher = "S. Karger AG",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biphasic versus monophasic shock for external cardioversion of atrial flutter: a prospective, randomized trial

AU - Mortensen, Kai

AU - Risius, Tim

AU - Schwemer, Tjark F

AU - Aydin, Muhammet Ali

AU - Köster, Ralf

AU - Klemm, Hanno U

AU - Lutomsky, Boris

AU - Meinertz, Thomas

AU - Ventura, Rodolfo

AU - Willems, Stephan

N1 - (c) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - BACKGROUND: External cardioversion is effective to terminate persistent atrial flutter. Biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation and atrial fibrillation cardioversion. The purpose of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rectilinear biphasic versus standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks in symptomatic patients with typical atrial flutter.METHODS: 135 consecutive patients were screened, 95 (70 males, mean age 62 +/- 13 years) were included. Patients were randomly assigned to a monophasic or biphasic cardioversion protocol. Forty-seven patients randomized to the monophasic protocol received sequential shocks of 100, 150, 200, 300 and 360 J. Forty-eight patients with the biphasic protocol received 50, 75, 100, 150 or 200 J.RESULTS: First-shock efficacy with 50-Joule, biphasic shocks (23/48 patients, 48%) was significantly greater than with the 100-Joule, monophasic waveform (13/47 patients, 28%, p = 0.04). The cumulative second-shock efficacy with the 50- and 75-Joule, biphasic waveform (39/48 patients, 81%) was significantly greater than with the 100- and 150-Joule, monophasic waveform (25/47 patients, 53%, p < 0.05). The cumulative efficacy for the higher energy levels showed naturally no significant difference between the two groups. The amount of the mean delivered energy was significantly lower in the biphasic group (76 +/- 39 J) compared to the monophasic one (177 +/- 78 J, p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: For transthoracic cardioversion of typical atrial flutter, biphasic shocks have greater efficacy and the mean delivered current is lower than for monophasic shocks. Therefore, biphasic cardioversion with lower starting energies should be recommended.

AB - BACKGROUND: External cardioversion is effective to terminate persistent atrial flutter. Biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation and atrial fibrillation cardioversion. The purpose of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rectilinear biphasic versus standard damped sine wave monophasic shocks in symptomatic patients with typical atrial flutter.METHODS: 135 consecutive patients were screened, 95 (70 males, mean age 62 +/- 13 years) were included. Patients were randomly assigned to a monophasic or biphasic cardioversion protocol. Forty-seven patients randomized to the monophasic protocol received sequential shocks of 100, 150, 200, 300 and 360 J. Forty-eight patients with the biphasic protocol received 50, 75, 100, 150 or 200 J.RESULTS: First-shock efficacy with 50-Joule, biphasic shocks (23/48 patients, 48%) was significantly greater than with the 100-Joule, monophasic waveform (13/47 patients, 28%, p = 0.04). The cumulative second-shock efficacy with the 50- and 75-Joule, biphasic waveform (39/48 patients, 81%) was significantly greater than with the 100- and 150-Joule, monophasic waveform (25/47 patients, 53%, p < 0.05). The cumulative efficacy for the higher energy levels showed naturally no significant difference between the two groups. The amount of the mean delivered energy was significantly lower in the biphasic group (76 +/- 39 J) compared to the monophasic one (177 +/- 78 J, p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: For transthoracic cardioversion of typical atrial flutter, biphasic shocks have greater efficacy and the mean delivered current is lower than for monophasic shocks. Therefore, biphasic cardioversion with lower starting energies should be recommended.

KW - Aged

KW - Atrial Flutter/therapy

KW - Electric Countershock/instrumentation

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Prospective Studies

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1159/000113429

DO - 10.1159/000113429

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 18239394

VL - 111

SP - 57

EP - 62

JO - CARDIOLOGY

JF - CARDIOLOGY

SN - 0008-6312

IS - 1

ER -