Rho Robert W, Page Richard L
The University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195-6422, USA.
Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003 Sep;7(3):290-1. doi: 10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb.
Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) using traditional monophasic shock waveform is unsuccessful in up to 20% of cases, and often requires several shocks of up to 360 J. Based on the success with biphasic shock waveform in converting ventricular fibrillation, it was postulated that biphasic shocks would allow cardioversion with lower energy. In a international multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 203 patients, damped sine wave monophasic shocks were compared with impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic waveform shocks. Patients received up to five shocks: 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. For each energy level, the biphasic waveform compared favorably to the monophasic waveform in successful cardioversion (100 J: 60% versus 22%, P < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% versus 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% versus 53%, p < 0.0001). Success with 200 J biphasic was equivalent to 360 J monophasic shock (91% versus 85%, p = 0.29). Patients randomized to biphasic waveform required fewer shocks and lower total energy delivered; in addition, this waveform was associated with less dermal injury and no blistering. Biphasic shocks converted AF present for less than 48 hours with 80% efficacy, but conversion of AF present for more than 48 hours and more than 1 year the success rate was only 63 and 20%, respectively. The results of this study is similar to other investigations comparing biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms for conversion of atrial fibrillation. We recommend starting with biphasic energy of 100 J for atrial fibrillation of less than 48 hours duration, but using higher energies (150 J, 200 J or greater) when AF has been present for longer periods.
使用传统单相电击波形进行心房颤动(AF)复律,高达20%的病例会失败,且常常需要多次高达360焦耳的电击。基于双相电击波形在转复心室颤动方面取得的成功,推测双相电击可实现更低能量的复律。在一项针对203例患者的国际多中心、双盲、随机试验中,对衰减正弦波单相电击与阻抗补偿截断指数双相波形电击进行了比较。患者接受多达五次电击:100焦耳、150焦耳、200焦耳,第四次电击为初始波形的最大输出能量(双相波形为200焦耳,单相波形为360焦耳),最后一次交叉电击为交替波形的最大输出能量。对于每个能量水平,双相波形在成功复律方面均优于单相波形(100焦耳:60%对22%,P<0.0001;150焦耳:77%对44%,P<0.0001;200焦耳:90%对53%,P<0.0001)。200焦耳双相电击的成功率与360焦耳单相电击相当(91%对85%,P=0.29)。随机分配到双相波形组的患者所需电击次数更少,总输送能量更低;此外,该波形导致的皮肤损伤更小且无水泡形成。双相电击对持续时间少于48小时的AF转复有效率为80%,但对持续时间超过48小时及超过1年的AF转复成功率分别仅为63%和20%。本研究结果与其他比较双相和单相电击波形用于心房颤动转复的研究相似。我们建议,对于持续时间少于48小时的心房颤动,起始双相能量为100焦耳,但当AF持续时间更长时,使用更高能量(150焦耳、200焦耳或更高)。