Discussion The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit thous and s of patients worldwide as well as healthcare systems and healthcare economy .
Background Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2 % in the western world .
Atrial flutter , another arrhythmia , occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA .
Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities .
The management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is often based on interventions aim ing at either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy .
The evidence on the comparable effects of these strategies is unclear .
This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the best overall treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter .
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 , r and omized , 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
Discussion The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit thous and s of patients worldwide as well as healthcare systems and healthcare economy .
Background Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2 % in the western world .
Atrial flutter , another arrhythmia , occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA .
Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities .
The management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is often based on interventions aim ing at either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy .
The evidence on the comparable effects of these strategies is unclear .
This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the best overall treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter .