CHU de Nice, Hôpital Pasteur, Service de Cardiologie, Nice, France.
CHU de Nice, Hôpital Pasteur, Service de Cardiologie, Nice, France.
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Mar;18(3):360-365. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.11.005. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
Electrical cardioversion is the first-line rhythm control therapy for symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Contemporary use of biphasic shock waveforms and anterior-posterior positioning of defibrillation electrodes have improved cardioversion efficacy; however, it remains unsuccessful in >10% of patients.
The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of applying active compression on defibrillation electrodes during AF cardioversion.
We performed a bicenter randomized study including patients referred for persistent AF cardioversion. Elective external cardioversion was performed by a standardized step-up protocol with increasing biphasic shock energy (50-100-150-200 J). Patients were randomly assigned to standard anterior-posterior defibrillation or to defibrillation with active compression applied over the anterior electrode. If sinus rhythm was not achieved at 200 J, a single crossover shock (200 J) was applied. Defibrillation threshold, total delivered energy, number of shocks, and success rate were compared between groups.
We included 100 patients, 50 in each group. In the active compression group, defibrillation threshold was lower (103.1 ± 49.9 J vs 130.4 ± 47.7 J; P = .008), as well as total delivered energy (203 ± 173.3 J vs 309 ± 213.5 J; P = .0076) and number of shocks (2.2 ± 1.1 vs 2.9 ± 1.2; P = .0033), and cardioversion was more often successful (48 of 50 patients [96%] vs 42 of 50 patients [84%]; P = .0455) than that in the standard anterior-posterior group. Crossover from the compression group to the standard group was not successful (0 of 2 patients), whereas crossover from the standard group to the compression group was successful in 50% of patients (4 of 8).
Active compression applied to the anterior defibrillation electrode is more effective for persistent AF cardioversion than standard anterior-posterior cardioversion, with lower defibrillation threshold and higher success rate.
电复律是治疗有症状持续性心房颤动(房颤)的一线节律控制治疗方法。双相电击波形和前后位放置除颤电极的现代应用提高了复律效果;然而,仍有超过 10%的患者复律不成功。
本研究旨在评估在房颤复律过程中应用除颤电极主动按压的效果。
我们进行了一项包括持续性房颤复律患者的双中心随机研究。采用逐步增加双相电击能量(50-100-150-200 J)的标准化升压方案进行选择性体外复律。患者被随机分为标准前后位除颤或在前电极上应用主动按压的除颤。如果 200 J 时未达到窦性心律,则应用单次交叉电击(200 J)。比较两组之间的除颤阈值、总传递能量、电击次数和成功率。
我们纳入了 100 例患者,每组 50 例。在主动按压组,除颤阈值较低(103.1 ± 49.9 J 比 130.4 ± 47.7 J;P =.008),总传递能量(203 ± 173.3 J 比 309 ± 213.5 J;P =.0076)和电击次数(2.2 ± 1.1 比 2.9 ± 1.2;P =.0033)也较低,复律成功率更高(50 例患者中有 48 例[96%]比 50 例患者中有 42 例[84%];P =.0455)。从按压组转换到标准组的患者没有成功(2 例患者均未成功),而从标准组转换到按压组的患者中有 50%(8 例中有 4 例)成功。
与标准前后位复律相比,在前部除颤电极上应用主动按压对持续性房颤复律更有效,可降低除颤阈值,提高成功率。