Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Abstract

Aims

Electrical cardioversion is commonly used to restore sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but procedural technique and clinical success vary. We sought to identify techniques associated with electrical cardioversion success for AF patients.

Methods and results

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the grey literature from inception to October 2022. We abstracted data on initial and cumulative cardioversion success. We pooled data using random-effects models. From 15 207 citations, we identified 45 randomized trials and 16 observational studies. In randomized trials, biphasic when compared with monophasic waveforms resulted in higher rates of initial [16 trials, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.29–2.28] and cumulative success (18 trials, RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04–1.16). Fixed, high-energy (≥200 J) shocks when compared with escalating energy resulted in a higher rate of initial success (four trials, RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.33–1.98). Manual pressure when compared with no pressure resulted in higher rates of initial (two trials, RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.21–3.95) and cumulative success (two trials, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06–1.34). Cardioversion success did not differ significantly for other interventions, including: antero-apical/lateral vs. antero-posterior positioned pads (initial: 11 trials, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97–1.39; cumulative: 14 trials, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.06); rectilinear/pulsed biphasic vs. biphasic truncated exponential waveform (initial: four trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.34; cumulative: four trials, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89–1.08) and cathodal vs. anodal configuration (cumulative: two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.07).

Conclusions

Biphasic waveforms, high-energy shocks, and manual pressure increase the success of electrical cardioversion for AF. Other interventions, especially pad positioning, require further study.

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Open in new tabDownload slide
Electrical cardioversion, Atrial fibrillation, Systematic review, Cardioversion techniques, Non-pharmacological interventions, Sinus rhythm restoration
What’s new?

  • Current guidelines provide limited guidance on how to perform electrical cardioversion, but our systematic review shows that clinicians can apply biphasic waveforms, high-energy (≥ 200J) shocks, and manual pressure to increase the likelihood of sinus rhythm conversion following atrial fibrillation.

  • The effect of pad positioning on electrical cardioversion success is currently indeterminate. Pad placement should be studied in conjunction with two other techniques known to be effective (i.e. maximal energy and biphasic shocks) for cardioversion success.

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.1–3 The prevalence and incidence of AF are increasing. An estimated 6–16 million people will have AF in the USA by 2050 and around 14 million people in Europe will have AF by 2060.4 Electrical cardioversion is a common procedure for patients with AF to restore sinus rhythm, alleviate symptoms, and delay disease progression.5–8 Reported acute success rates of electrical cardioversion range from 50 to 90%.9–15 Electrical cardioversion has multiple modifiable components, including waveform phases, shock energy, pad positioning, manual pressure, and the use of adjunct medications.14 Differences in technique may explain some of the variability in procedural success. Clinical practice guidelines provide limited guidance on how to perform electrical cardioversion.5–8 The available evidence on interventions needs to be collated, appraised, and summarized to inform clinical practice and identify directions for future research.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare rates of successful electrical cardioversion of AF using different techniques.

Methods

We pre-registered the protocol with Open Science Framework (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/FTU57).16 We list the differences between the registered and final protocol in see Supplementary material online, Appendix S1.

Search strategy

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to October 2022 and searched the grey literature.16 An academic librarian reviewed the search strategies (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S2).

Eligibility criteria

We included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies evaluating the efficacy of a non-pharmacological intervention in patients with AF undergoing electrical cardioversion. We excluded studies where AF was induced and studies focused on atrial flutter. We did not pose restrictions on language or publication status.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were initial and cumulative cardioversion success, defined as sinus rhythm following administration of the first and last shock, respectively. For ‘cross-over’ protocols, we only considered shocks delivered with the first allocated intervention. We included adverse events as secondary outcomes. We used individual studies’ definitions for all outcomes.

Data collection and analysis

We selected studies using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Two reviewers independently screened studies based on titles and abstracts. Two reviewers then independently screened full texts and recorded the main reason for exclusion. We resolved disagreements through discussion with the supervising author.

Data extraction and management

For each study, two reviewers independently collected data, resolving disagreements by discussion with the supervising author. We collected data on bibliographic information, AF duration, study protocol, anticoagulant, and anti-arrhythmic drug use, description of the intervention and comparator, electrical cardioversion success, and adverse events. We contacted authors for further information as needed.

Data synthesis and subgroup analyses

We used Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) to perform meta-analysis using the Mantel–Haenszel method. Results are presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. A two-sided P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We assessed heterogeneity with the I2 statistic and considered an I2 value of > 50% to represent substantial heterogeneity.17 We conducted pre-specified subgroup analyses based on waveform phases, energy dose, and electrode positioning.

Assessment of the quality of evidence

We assessed risk of bias in individual studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool for randomized trials and the CLARITY tool for observational studies.18–20 Reviewers evaluated randomized trials as having low, high, or unclear risk of bias across the domains of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias (e.g. premature study termination). We judged detection bias to be low in all studies due to the objective nature of the outcome and the short time from intervention to occurrence. We judged the risk of performance bias to be low if study protocols clearly outlined co-interventions; otherwise, we judged it to be high. We dichotomized the overall risk of bias as either low (all domains rated at a low risk of bias) or high (at least one domain rated at a high risk of bias). Reviewers assessed observational studies as having low, probably low, probably high, or high risk of bias.

We appraised the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.21 Within the GRADE framework, randomized trials begin with a high-quality rating and observational studies begin with a low-quality rating. The quality of the evidence can be rated up or down based on five factors: risk of bias, directness of the evidence, heterogeneity of data, precision of results, and publication bias.

Results

Search results and study selection

Our search strategy identified a total of 15 207 unique citations, of which 258 met criteria for full-text screening. From this, 45 randomized trials (7110 participants) and 16 observational studies (4718 participants) met criteria for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S3). Interventions studied in randomized trials included: shock waveforms (18 studies), energy dose (4 studies), pad positioning (14 studies), manual pressure (2 studies), biphasic waveform properties (5 studies), and electrode polarity (2 studies). The characteristics of the included randomized trials are summarized in Table 1 and detailed further in Supplementary material online, Appendix S4. The interventions compared in the 16 observational studies included: biphasic vs. monophasic shock waveform (six studies), energy dose (two studies), pad positioning (four studies), manual pressure (two studies), and biphasic waveform properties (two studies). Supplementary material online, Appendix S5 summarizes the characteristics of the included observational studies. Supplementary material online, Appendix S6 summarizes the characteristics of ongoing and important excluded studies.

Table 1
Open in new tab

Characteristics of included studies

AuthorStudy armsnElectrode placement or waveformShock protocol (Joules)Success rate (%) by attemptRisk of bias
12345
SHOCK WAVEFORM
Ambler 200622Monophasic68AA100, 200, 300, 360, 3601947667987High
Biphasic60AA70, 100, 150, 200, 3003370849293
Kawabata 200723MDS77AA100, 200, 300, up to 36054.681.890.992.2–Low
BTE77AA50, 100, 150, up to 17557.180.587.089.6–
Khaykin 200324MDS28AP360––21––Low
BTE28AP150, 200, 360224369––
Kirchhof 200525MDS97AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3608.316486880High
BTE104AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3602555828995
Kmec 200626MDS100AL200, 300, 360, 36027608083–Low
BTE100AL100, 120, 270, 27050869393–
Kosior 200527MDS22AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A88––Low
BR26AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A100––
Koster 200428MDS37AL70, 100, 200, 3605.4193886–Low
BTE35AL70, 100, 200, 36060809797–
Krasteva 200129MDS80N/A16090––––Low
BTE31N/A80, 100, 120, 160, 180N/AN/AN/AN/A87
Manegold 200730MDS21AP200, 300, 360, 36071%N/AN/A95–Low
BR23AP100, 150, 200, 20074%N/AN/A96–
Marinsek 200331MDS40AL100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A90–High
BTE43AL70, 100, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A88.3–
Mittal 200032MDS77AP100, 200, 300, 36021446879–High
BR88AP70, 120, 150, 17068859194–
Neumann 200433MDS57AP100, 200, 36015.842.173.7––Low
BTE61AP100, 200, 36057.495.1100––
Page 200234MDS107AP100, 150, 200, 36022.443.953.385.1–Low
BTE96AP100, 150, 200, 36060.477.189.690.6–
Ricard 200135MDS27AL150, 36059.388.9–––Low
BTE30AL150, 36086.793.3–––
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BTE24AP70, 100, 150, 200, 20015558095100
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BR22AP75, 100, 150, 200, 200945729095
Siaplaouras 200437MDS108AP200, 300, 360, 36067.7N/AN/A96.8–Low
RBW108AP120, 150, 200, 20076.4N/AN/A94.3–
Stanaitiene 200838MDS112AA, AP100, 200, 300, 36037.563.477.779.5–High
BTE112AA, AP100, 150, 200, 300, 3606788.494.697.3–
Vaisman 200539Monophasic22N/A200, 300, 36095.5N/A95.5––Low
Biphasic21N/A120, 150, 20057.1N/A85.5––
ENERGY DOSE
Boodhoo 200740Escalating125AA-AA-AP
MDS		200 AA, 360AA, 360AP41.672.083.2––Low
High energy136AA-AP-PA
MDS		360AA, 360AP, 360PA68.486.091.9––
Glover 200841Escalating193AA100, 150, 200, 20047.776.787.690.2–Low
BTE
High energy187AA200, 200, 20070.682.988.2––
BTE
aGotcheva 201542Escalating112AL120, 200, 200, 36054.5N/AN/A95.5Low
Biphasic
High energy169AL200, 200, 200, 36072.9N/AN/A88.8
Biphasic
Schmidt 202043Escalating147AP120, 150, 20034.053.166––Low
BTE
High energy129AP360, 360, 36075.285.388.4––
BTE
PAD PLACEMENT
Alp 200044AL30MDS36060––––High
AP29MDS36034.5––––
Botto 199945AA151MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)5876–––High
AP150MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)6787–––
Brazdzionyte 200646AL55BTE100, 150, 200, 30072.794.596.398.2–Low
AP48BTE100, 150, 200, 30060.485.495.897.9–
Chen 200347AA31MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 36019.445.274.277.483.9Low
AP39MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 3602341.066.779.584.6
Kirchhof 200248AA56MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J5.419.750.16878.7High
AP52MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J9.628.859.676.996.1
Mathew 199949AA45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A84–Low
AP45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A78–
Munoz-Martinez 201050AA46BTE150, 200, 20070N/A96––Low
AP45BTE150, 200, 20040N/A94––
Schmidt 202151AL233BTE100, 150, 200, 36054758693–Low
AP234BTE100, 150, 200, 36033536985–
Siaplaouras 200552AA63Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts74.687.393.695.2–Low
AP60Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts78.389.994.994.9–
Steill 202053AL82Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)91.4N/A93.9––Low
AP78Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)76.9N/A91.0––
Tuinenburg 199754AL35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A85.7––Low
AP35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A82.9
Vogiatzis 200955AA32MDS200, 300, 36043.862.596.9––Low
AP30MDS200, 300, 36050.093.3100.0––
Voskoboinik 201956AL64Biphasic100, 200N/A76.5–––Low
AP61Biphasic100, 200N/A82–––
Walsh 200557AA150BTE70, 100, 150, 2003666.08295.3–Low
AP144BTE70, 100, 150, 2003151.475.788.2–
MANUAL PRESSURE OR NO PRESSURE
Squara 202158Active compression50AP50, 100, 150, 20010467284–Low
Control50AP50, 100, 150, 20034668696–
bVoskoboinik, 201956Hand-held paddles62AA or AP100, 2005090–––Low
adhesive patch63AA or AP100, 2002768–––
BIPHASIC WAVEFORM PROPERTIES
Alatawi 200559BTE70AP50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 36030N/AN/AN/AN/AHigh
BR71AP50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 20021N/AN/AN/AN/A
Deakin 201260BTE99N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20015.247.568.787.990.9High
BR101N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20018.858.482.291.195.1
Kim 200461BTE74AP50, 100, 150, 200, 3605484929797Low
BR71AP50, 100, 150, 20061799397–
Neal 200362BTE48AP50, 100, 200, 20052.183.395.897.9–Low
BR53AP50, 100, 200, 20064.294.3100.00100.00–
Schmidt 201763BTE65AP100, 150, 200, 250N/AN/AN/A86–High
PB69AP90, 120, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A62–
ELECTRODE POLARITY
Oral 199964Anterior cathodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A85N/A94Low
Anterior anodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A72N/A96
Rashba 200265Anterior cathodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A83.4Low
Anterior anodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A78.1
AuthorStudy armsnElectrode placement or waveformShock protocol (Joules)Success rate (%) by attemptRisk of bias
12345
SHOCK WAVEFORM
Ambler 200622Monophasic68AA100, 200, 300, 360, 3601947667987High
Biphasic60AA70, 100, 150, 200, 3003370849293
Kawabata 200723MDS77AA100, 200, 300, up to 36054.681.890.992.2–Low
BTE77AA50, 100, 150, up to 17557.180.587.089.6–
Khaykin 200324MDS28AP360––21––Low
BTE28AP150, 200, 360224369––
Kirchhof 200525MDS97AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3608.316486880High
BTE104AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3602555828995
Kmec 200626MDS100AL200, 300, 360, 36027608083–Low
BTE100AL100, 120, 270, 27050869393–
Kosior 200527MDS22AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A88––Low
BR26AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A100––
Koster 200428MDS37AL70, 100, 200, 3605.4193886–Low
BTE35AL70, 100, 200, 36060809797–
Krasteva 200129MDS80N/A16090––––Low
BTE31N/A80, 100, 120, 160, 180N/AN/AN/AN/A87
Manegold 200730MDS21AP200, 300, 360, 36071%N/AN/A95–Low
BR23AP100, 150, 200, 20074%N/AN/A96–
Marinsek 200331MDS40AL100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A90–High
BTE43AL70, 100, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A88.3–
Mittal 200032MDS77AP100, 200, 300, 36021446879–High
BR88AP70, 120, 150, 17068859194–
Neumann 200433MDS57AP100, 200, 36015.842.173.7––Low
BTE61AP100, 200, 36057.495.1100––
Page 200234MDS107AP100, 150, 200, 36022.443.953.385.1–Low
BTE96AP100, 150, 200, 36060.477.189.690.6–
Ricard 200135MDS27AL150, 36059.388.9–––Low
BTE30AL150, 36086.793.3–––
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BTE24AP70, 100, 150, 200, 20015558095100
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BR22AP75, 100, 150, 200, 200945729095
Siaplaouras 200437MDS108AP200, 300, 360, 36067.7N/AN/A96.8–Low
RBW108AP120, 150, 200, 20076.4N/AN/A94.3–
Stanaitiene 200838MDS112AA, AP100, 200, 300, 36037.563.477.779.5–High
BTE112AA, AP100, 150, 200, 300, 3606788.494.697.3–
Vaisman 200539Monophasic22N/A200, 300, 36095.5N/A95.5––Low
Biphasic21N/A120, 150, 20057.1N/A85.5––
ENERGY DOSE
Boodhoo 200740Escalating125AA-AA-AP
MDS		200 AA, 360AA, 360AP41.672.083.2––Low
High energy136AA-AP-PA
MDS		360AA, 360AP, 360PA68.486.091.9––
Glover 200841Escalating193AA100, 150, 200, 20047.776.787.690.2–Low
BTE
High energy187AA200, 200, 20070.682.988.2––
BTE
aGotcheva 201542Escalating112AL120, 200, 200, 36054.5N/AN/A95.5Low
Biphasic
High energy169AL200, 200, 200, 36072.9N/AN/A88.8
Biphasic
Schmidt 202043Escalating147AP120, 150, 20034.053.166––Low
BTE
High energy129AP360, 360, 36075.285.388.4––
BTE
PAD PLACEMENT
Alp 200044AL30MDS36060––––High
AP29MDS36034.5––––
Botto 199945AA151MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)5876–––High
AP150MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)6787–––
Brazdzionyte 200646AL55BTE100, 150, 200, 30072.794.596.398.2–Low
AP48BTE100, 150, 200, 30060.485.495.897.9–
Chen 200347AA31MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 36019.445.274.277.483.9Low
AP39MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 3602341.066.779.584.6
Kirchhof 200248AA56MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J5.419.750.16878.7High
AP52MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J9.628.859.676.996.1
Mathew 199949AA45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A84–Low
AP45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A78–
Munoz-Martinez 201050AA46BTE150, 200, 20070N/A96––Low
AP45BTE150, 200, 20040N/A94––
Schmidt 202151AL233BTE100, 150, 200, 36054758693–Low
AP234BTE100, 150, 200, 36033536985–
Siaplaouras 200552AA63Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts74.687.393.695.2–Low
AP60Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts78.389.994.994.9–
Steill 202053AL82Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)91.4N/A93.9––Low
AP78Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)76.9N/A91.0––
Tuinenburg 199754AL35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A85.7––Low
AP35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A82.9
Vogiatzis 200955AA32MDS200, 300, 36043.862.596.9––Low
AP30MDS200, 300, 36050.093.3100.0––
Voskoboinik 201956AL64Biphasic100, 200N/A76.5–––Low
AP61Biphasic100, 200N/A82–––
Walsh 200557AA150BTE70, 100, 150, 2003666.08295.3–Low
AP144BTE70, 100, 150, 2003151.475.788.2–
MANUAL PRESSURE OR NO PRESSURE
Squara 202158Active compression50AP50, 100, 150, 20010467284–Low
Control50AP50, 100, 150, 20034668696–
bVoskoboinik, 201956Hand-held paddles62AA or AP100, 2005090–––Low
adhesive patch63AA or AP100, 2002768–––
BIPHASIC WAVEFORM PROPERTIES
Alatawi 200559BTE70AP50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 36030N/AN/AN/AN/AHigh
BR71AP50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 20021N/AN/AN/AN/A
Deakin 201260BTE99N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20015.247.568.787.990.9High
BR101N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20018.858.482.291.195.1
Kim 200461BTE74AP50, 100, 150, 200, 3605484929797Low
BR71AP50, 100, 150, 20061799397–
Neal 200362BTE48AP50, 100, 200, 20052.183.395.897.9–Low
BR53AP50, 100, 200, 20064.294.3100.00100.00–
Schmidt 201763BTE65AP100, 150, 200, 250N/AN/AN/A86–High
PB69AP90, 120, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A62–
ELECTRODE POLARITY
Oral 199964Anterior cathodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A85N/A94Low
Anterior anodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A72N/A96
Rashba 200265Anterior cathodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A83.4Low
Anterior anodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A78.1

Separate group involving escalating protocol based on body surface area not included.

Special inclusion criterion of body mass index of 30 or greater.

Abbreviations: AA, antero-apical pad positioning; AL, antero-lateral pad positioning; AP, antero-posterior pad positioning; BR, biphasic rectilinear waveform; BTE, biphasic truncated exponential waveform; MDS, monophasic dampened sinusoidal waveform; N/A, not applicable (not reported); SR, sinus rhythm.

Table 1
Open in new tab

Characteristics of included studies

AuthorStudy armsnElectrode placement or waveformShock protocol (Joules)Success rate (%) by attemptRisk of bias
12345
SHOCK WAVEFORM
Ambler 200622Monophasic68AA100, 200, 300, 360, 3601947667987High
Biphasic60AA70, 100, 150, 200, 3003370849293
Kawabata 200723MDS77AA100, 200, 300, up to 36054.681.890.992.2–Low
BTE77AA50, 100, 150, up to 17557.180.587.089.6–
Khaykin 200324MDS28AP360––21––Low
BTE28AP150, 200, 360224369––
Kirchhof 200525MDS97AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3608.316486880High
BTE104AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3602555828995
Kmec 200626MDS100AL200, 300, 360, 36027608083–Low
BTE100AL100, 120, 270, 27050869393–
Kosior 200527MDS22AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A88––Low
BR26AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A100––
Koster 200428MDS37AL70, 100, 200, 3605.4193886–Low
BTE35AL70, 100, 200, 36060809797–
Krasteva 200129MDS80N/A16090––––Low
BTE31N/A80, 100, 120, 160, 180N/AN/AN/AN/A87
Manegold 200730MDS21AP200, 300, 360, 36071%N/AN/A95–Low
BR23AP100, 150, 200, 20074%N/AN/A96–
Marinsek 200331MDS40AL100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A90–High
BTE43AL70, 100, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A88.3–
Mittal 200032MDS77AP100, 200, 300, 36021446879–High
BR88AP70, 120, 150, 17068859194–
Neumann 200433MDS57AP100, 200, 36015.842.173.7––Low
BTE61AP100, 200, 36057.495.1100––
Page 200234MDS107AP100, 150, 200, 36022.443.953.385.1–Low
BTE96AP100, 150, 200, 36060.477.189.690.6–
Ricard 200135MDS27AL150, 36059.388.9–––Low
BTE30AL150, 36086.793.3–––
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BTE24AP70, 100, 150, 200, 20015558095100
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BR22AP75, 100, 150, 200, 200945729095
Siaplaouras 200437MDS108AP200, 300, 360, 36067.7N/AN/A96.8–Low
RBW108AP120, 150, 200, 20076.4N/AN/A94.3–
Stanaitiene 200838MDS112AA, AP100, 200, 300, 36037.563.477.779.5–High
BTE112AA, AP100, 150, 200, 300, 3606788.494.697.3–
Vaisman 200539Monophasic22N/A200, 300, 36095.5N/A95.5––Low
Biphasic21N/A120, 150, 20057.1N/A85.5––
ENERGY DOSE
Boodhoo 200740Escalating125AA-AA-AP
MDS		200 AA, 360AA, 360AP41.672.083.2––Low
High energy136AA-AP-PA
MDS		360AA, 360AP, 360PA68.486.091.9––
Glover 200841Escalating193AA100, 150, 200, 20047.776.787.690.2–Low
BTE
High energy187AA200, 200, 20070.682.988.2––
BTE
aGotcheva 201542Escalating112AL120, 200, 200, 36054.5N/AN/A95.5Low
Biphasic
High energy169AL200, 200, 200, 36072.9N/AN/A88.8
Biphasic
Schmidt 202043Escalating147AP120, 150, 20034.053.166––Low
BTE
High energy129AP360, 360, 36075.285.388.4––
BTE
PAD PLACEMENT
Alp 200044AL30MDS36060––––High
AP29MDS36034.5––––
Botto 199945AA151MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)5876–––High
AP150MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)6787–––
Brazdzionyte 200646AL55BTE100, 150, 200, 30072.794.596.398.2–Low
AP48BTE100, 150, 200, 30060.485.495.897.9–
Chen 200347AA31MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 36019.445.274.277.483.9Low
AP39MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 3602341.066.779.584.6
Kirchhof 200248AA56MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J5.419.750.16878.7High
AP52MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J9.628.859.676.996.1
Mathew 199949AA45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A84–Low
AP45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A78–
Munoz-Martinez 201050AA46BTE150, 200, 20070N/A96––Low
AP45BTE150, 200, 20040N/A94––
Schmidt 202151AL233BTE100, 150, 200, 36054758693–Low
AP234BTE100, 150, 200, 36033536985–
Siaplaouras 200552AA63Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts74.687.393.695.2–Low
AP60Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts78.389.994.994.9–
Steill 202053AL82Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)91.4N/A93.9––Low
AP78Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)76.9N/A91.0––
Tuinenburg 199754AL35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A85.7––Low
AP35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A82.9
Vogiatzis 200955AA32MDS200, 300, 36043.862.596.9––Low
AP30MDS200, 300, 36050.093.3100.0––
Voskoboinik 201956AL64Biphasic100, 200N/A76.5–––Low
AP61Biphasic100, 200N/A82–––
Walsh 200557AA150BTE70, 100, 150, 2003666.08295.3–Low
AP144BTE70, 100, 150, 2003151.475.788.2–
MANUAL PRESSURE OR NO PRESSURE
Squara 202158Active compression50AP50, 100, 150, 20010467284–Low
Control50AP50, 100, 150, 20034668696–
bVoskoboinik, 201956Hand-held paddles62AA or AP100, 2005090–––Low
adhesive patch63AA or AP100, 2002768–––
BIPHASIC WAVEFORM PROPERTIES
Alatawi 200559BTE70AP50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 36030N/AN/AN/AN/AHigh
BR71AP50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 20021N/AN/AN/AN/A
Deakin 201260BTE99N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20015.247.568.787.990.9High
BR101N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20018.858.482.291.195.1
Kim 200461BTE74AP50, 100, 150, 200, 3605484929797Low
BR71AP50, 100, 150, 20061799397–
Neal 200362BTE48AP50, 100, 200, 20052.183.395.897.9–Low
BR53AP50, 100, 200, 20064.294.3100.00100.00–
Schmidt 201763BTE65AP100, 150, 200, 250N/AN/AN/A86–High
PB69AP90, 120, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A62–
ELECTRODE POLARITY
Oral 199964Anterior cathodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A85N/A94Low
Anterior anodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A72N/A96
Rashba 200265Anterior cathodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A83.4Low
Anterior anodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A78.1
AuthorStudy armsnElectrode placement or waveformShock protocol (Joules)Success rate (%) by attemptRisk of bias
12345
SHOCK WAVEFORM
Ambler 200622Monophasic68AA100, 200, 300, 360, 3601947667987High
Biphasic60AA70, 100, 150, 200, 3003370849293
Kawabata 200723MDS77AA100, 200, 300, up to 36054.681.890.992.2–Low
BTE77AA50, 100, 150, up to 17557.180.587.089.6–
Khaykin 200324MDS28AP360––21––Low
BTE28AP150, 200, 360224369––
Kirchhof 200525MDS97AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3608.316486880High
BTE104AP50, 100, 200, 300, 3602555828995
Kmec 200626MDS100AL200, 300, 360, 36027608083–Low
BTE100AL100, 120, 270, 27050869393–
Kosior 200527MDS22AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A88––Low
BR26AL2 J/kg BW, then up to 2 shocks of 360 JN/AN/A100––
Koster 200428MDS37AL70, 100, 200, 3605.4193886–Low
BTE35AL70, 100, 200, 36060809797–
Krasteva 200129MDS80N/A16090––––Low
BTE31N/A80, 100, 120, 160, 180N/AN/AN/AN/A87
Manegold 200730MDS21AP200, 300, 360, 36071%N/AN/A95–Low
BR23AP100, 150, 200, 20074%N/AN/A96–
Marinsek 200331MDS40AL100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A90–High
BTE43AL70, 100, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A88.3–
Mittal 200032MDS77AP100, 200, 300, 36021446879–High
BR88AP70, 120, 150, 17068859194–
Neumann 200433MDS57AP100, 200, 36015.842.173.7––Low
BTE61AP100, 200, 36057.495.1100––
Page 200234MDS107AP100, 150, 200, 36022.443.953.385.1–Low
BTE96AP100, 150, 200, 36060.477.189.690.6–
Ricard 200135MDS27AL150, 36059.388.9–––Low
BTE30AL150, 36086.793.3–––
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BTE24AP70, 100, 150, 200, 20015558095100
Santomauro 200436MDS18AP100, 200, 300, 360, 360527507278Low
BR22AP75, 100, 150, 200, 200945729095
Siaplaouras 200437MDS108AP200, 300, 360, 36067.7N/AN/A96.8–Low
RBW108AP120, 150, 200, 20076.4N/AN/A94.3–
Stanaitiene 200838MDS112AA, AP100, 200, 300, 36037.563.477.779.5–High
BTE112AA, AP100, 150, 200, 300, 3606788.494.697.3–
Vaisman 200539Monophasic22N/A200, 300, 36095.5N/A95.5––Low
Biphasic21N/A120, 150, 20057.1N/A85.5––
ENERGY DOSE
Boodhoo 200740Escalating125AA-AA-AP
MDS		200 AA, 360AA, 360AP41.672.083.2––Low
High energy136AA-AP-PA
MDS		360AA, 360AP, 360PA68.486.091.9––
Glover 200841Escalating193AA100, 150, 200, 20047.776.787.690.2–Low
BTE
High energy187AA200, 200, 20070.682.988.2––
BTE
aGotcheva 201542Escalating112AL120, 200, 200, 36054.5N/AN/A95.5Low
Biphasic
High energy169AL200, 200, 200, 36072.9N/AN/A88.8
Biphasic
Schmidt 202043Escalating147AP120, 150, 20034.053.166––Low
BTE
High energy129AP360, 360, 36075.285.388.4––
BTE
PAD PLACEMENT
Alp 200044AL30MDS36060––––High
AP29MDS36034.5––––
Botto 199945AA151MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)5876–––High
AP150MDS3 J/kg BW then 4 J/kg (max. 360 J)6787–––
Brazdzionyte 200646AL55BTE100, 150, 200, 30072.794.596.398.2–Low
AP48BTE100, 150, 200, 30060.485.495.897.9–
Chen 200347AA31MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 36019.445.274.277.483.9Low
AP39MDS100, 150, 200, 300, 3602341.066.779.584.6
Kirchhof 200248AA56MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J5.419.750.16878.7High
AP52MDSPreselected shock energies, starting at 50 J9.628.859.676.996.1
Mathew 199949AA45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A84–Low
AP45N/A100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/A78–
Munoz-Martinez 201050AA46BTE150, 200, 20070N/A96––Low
AP45BTE150, 200, 20040N/A94––
Schmidt 202151AL233BTE100, 150, 200, 36054758693–Low
AP234BTE100, 150, 200, 36033536985–
Siaplaouras 200552AA63Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts74.687.393.695.2–Low
AP60Biphasic120, 150, 200, 200 Watts78.389.994.994.9–
Steill 202053AL82Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)91.4N/A93.9––Low
AP78Biphasic≥ 200 (3 shocks maximum)76.9N/A91.0––
Tuinenburg 199754AL35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A85.7––Low
AP35MDS100, 200, 360N/AN/A82.9
Vogiatzis 200955AA32MDS200, 300, 36043.862.596.9––Low
AP30MDS200, 300, 36050.093.3100.0––
Voskoboinik 201956AL64Biphasic100, 200N/A76.5–––Low
AP61Biphasic100, 200N/A82–––
Walsh 200557AA150BTE70, 100, 150, 2003666.08295.3–Low
AP144BTE70, 100, 150, 2003151.475.788.2–
MANUAL PRESSURE OR NO PRESSURE
Squara 202158Active compression50AP50, 100, 150, 20010467284–Low
Control50AP50, 100, 150, 20034668696–
bVoskoboinik, 201956Hand-held paddles62AA or AP100, 2005090–––Low
adhesive patch63AA or AP100, 2002768–––
BIPHASIC WAVEFORM PROPERTIES
Alatawi 200559BTE70AP50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 36030N/AN/AN/AN/AHigh
BR71AP50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 20021N/AN/AN/AN/A
Deakin 201260BTE99N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20015.247.568.787.990.9High
BR101N/A50, 100, 150, 200, 20018.858.482.291.195.1
Kim 200461BTE74AP50, 100, 150, 200, 3605484929797Low
BR71AP50, 100, 150, 20061799397–
Neal 200362BTE48AP50, 100, 200, 20052.183.395.897.9–Low
BR53AP50, 100, 200, 20064.294.3100.00100.00–
Schmidt 201763BTE65AP100, 150, 200, 250N/AN/AN/A86–High
PB69AP90, 120, 150, 200N/AN/AN/A62–
ELECTRODE POLARITY
Oral 199964Anterior cathodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A85N/A94Low
Anterior anodal configuration100MDS, AA50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/A72N/A96
Rashba 200265Anterior cathodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A83.4Low
Anterior anodal configuration55AP50, 100, 200, 300, 360N/AN/AN/AN/A78.1

Separate group involving escalating protocol based on body surface area not included.

Special inclusion criterion of body mass index of 30 or greater.

Abbreviations: AA, antero-apical pad positioning; AL, antero-lateral pad positioning; AP, antero-posterior pad positioning; BR, biphasic rectilinear waveform; BTE, biphasic truncated exponential waveform; MDS, monophasic dampened sinusoidal waveform; N/A, not applicable (not reported); SR, sinus rhythm.

Assessment of risk of bias

We judged 28 trials as having an unclear risk of bias for randomization and 31 studies as having an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment; no studies were rated high risk in these two domains. We judged all 46 trials to be at low risk of detection bias. We judged one trial to be at high risk for performance bias due to participants receiving unequal co-interventions.45 No studies had risk of attrition or reporting bias that we judged to have an important effect on outcomes. Three trials were terminated early for benefit44,48,63; this is known to potentially overestimate the true effect size.66Supplementary material online, Appendix S7 summarizes our judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all randomized trials. Supplementary material online, Appendix S8 summarizes our judgements about risk of bias across included randomized trials. Supplementary material online, Appendix S9 summarizes the risk of bias in observational studies.

Initial and cumulative cardioversion success

Table 2 summarizes the study’s overall findings.

Table 2
Open in new tab

Association of different interventions with initial and cumulative cardioversion success in patients with atrial fibrillation

InterventionInitial successCumulative success
Events/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidenceEvents/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidence
Shock waveform
Monophasic316/9741.71 (1.29–2.28)85Moderate936/11161.10 (1.04–1.16)70High
Biphasic538/9891016/1089
Energy dose
High energy445/6211.62 (1.33–1.98)72High553/6211.07 (0.93–1.24)91Low
Escalating energy255/577477/577
Pad placement
Antero-apical/lateral540/10911.16 (0.97–1.39)70Low984/12351.01 (0.96–1.06)62Moderate
Antero-posterior451/1075939/1216
Pressure
No pressure22/1122.19 (1.21–3.95)34High85/1121.19 (1.06–1.34)9High
Manual pressure48/113104/113
Biphasic waveform properties
Rectilinear/pulsed biphasic111/2961.11 (0.91–1.34)0Moderate261/2940.98 (0.89–1.08)84Moderate
Biphasic truncated exponential101/291265/286
Polarity
Cathodal configurationN/A140/1550.99 (0.92–1.07)15High
Anodal configuration139/155
InterventionInitial successCumulative success
Events/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidenceEvents/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidence
Shock waveform
Monophasic316/9741.71 (1.29–2.28)85Moderate936/11161.10 (1.04–1.16)70High
Biphasic538/9891016/1089
Energy dose
High energy445/6211.62 (1.33–1.98)72High553/6211.07 (0.93–1.24)91Low
Escalating energy255/577477/577
Pad placement
Antero-apical/lateral540/10911.16 (0.97–1.39)70Low984/12351.01 (0.96–1.06)62Moderate
Antero-posterior451/1075939/1216
Pressure
No pressure22/1122.19 (1.21–3.95)34High85/1121.19 (1.06–1.34)9High
Manual pressure48/113104/113
Biphasic waveform properties
Rectilinear/pulsed biphasic111/2961.11 (0.91–1.34)0Moderate261/2940.98 (0.89–1.08)84Moderate
Biphasic truncated exponential101/291265/286
Polarity
Cathodal configurationN/A140/1550.99 (0.92–1.07)15High
Anodal configuration139/155
Table 2
Open in new tab

Association of different interventions with initial and cumulative cardioversion success in patients with atrial fibrillation

InterventionInitial successCumulative success
Events/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidenceEvents/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidence
Shock waveform
Monophasic316/9741.71 (1.29–2.28)85Moderate936/11161.10 (1.04–1.16)70High
Biphasic538/9891016/1089
Energy dose
High energy445/6211.62 (1.33–1.98)72High553/6211.07 (0.93–1.24)91Low
Escalating energy255/577477/577
Pad placement
Antero-apical/lateral540/10911.16 (0.97–1.39)70Low984/12351.01 (0.96–1.06)62Moderate
Antero-posterior451/1075939/1216
Pressure
No pressure22/1122.19 (1.21–3.95)34High85/1121.19 (1.06–1.34)9High
Manual pressure48/113104/113
Biphasic waveform properties
Rectilinear/pulsed biphasic111/2961.11 (0.91–1.34)0Moderate261/2940.98 (0.89–1.08)84Moderate
Biphasic truncated exponential101/291265/286
Polarity
Cathodal configurationN/A140/1550.99 (0.92–1.07)15High
Anodal configuration139/155
InterventionInitial successCumulative success
Events/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidenceEvents/total (no. of patients)Effect
risk ratio (95% CI)		I2%Quality of evidence
Shock waveform
Monophasic316/9741.71 (1.29–2.28)85Moderate936/11161.10 (1.04–1.16)70High
Biphasic538/9891016/1089
Energy dose
High energy445/6211.62 (1.33–1.98)72High553/6211.07 (0.93–1.24)91Low
Escalating energy255/577477/577
Pad placement
Antero-apical/lateral540/10911.16 (0.97–1.39)70Low984/12351.01 (0.96–1.06)62Moderate
Antero-posterior451/1075939/1216
Pressure
No pressure22/1122.19 (1.21–3.95)34High85/1121.19 (1.06–1.34)9High
Manual pressure48/113104/113
Biphasic waveform properties
Rectilinear/pulsed biphasic111/2961.11 (0.91–1.34)0Moderate261/2940.98 (0.89–1.08)84Moderate
Biphasic truncated exponential101/291265/286
Polarity
Cathodal configurationN/A140/1550.99 (0.92–1.07)15High
Anodal configuration139/155

Biphasic and monophasic waveforms

Sixteen randomized trials (1963 participants) compared initial cardioversion success between biphasic and monophasic waveforms.22–26,28,30,32–39 Biphasic waveforms resulted in an overall higher rate of cardioversion success (54 vs. 32%, RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.29–2.28, I2 = 85%, Figure 1A). Neither subgroup analyses comparing the two variations of the biphasic waveform (truncated exponential and rectilinear) nor subgroup analyses comparing pad positioning showed significant differences (all P > 0.05) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). We judged the overall quality of evidence for initial cardioversion success to be high (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Forest plots for RCTs comparing biphasic and monophasic waveforms. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.
Figure 1

Forest plots for RCTs comparing biphasic and monophasic waveforms. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Nineteen randomized trials (2205 participants) compared cumulative cardioversion success between biphasic and monophasic waveforms.22–39 Biphasic waveforms resulted in an overall higher rate of cardioversion success (93 vs. 84%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04–1.16, I2 = 70%, Figure 1B). All trials used low-dose escalating energy shock protocols. Subgroup analyses comparing the two variations of the biphasic waveform (truncated exponential and rectilinear) did not show any significant differences (P = 0.33) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). Subgroup analyses comparing pad positioning also did not show significant differences (P = 0.32) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). We judged the overall quality of evidence for cumulative cardioversion success to be high (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Energy dose

Four randomized trials (1198 participants) compared initial cardioversion success between high-energy shocks with a minimum of 200 J and shock protocols that started with low energy and escalated in the event of an unsuccessful shock.40–43 High-energy shocks resulted in a significant improvement in overall initial cardioversion success (72 vs. 44%, RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.33–1.98, I2 = 72%, Figure 2). Subgroup analyses based on electrode positioning showed a significant subgroup effect for initial cardioversion success in favour of a larger effect with antero-posterior pad positioning when compared with antero-apical or antero-lateral positioning (P = 0.003) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). Neither biphasic when compared with monophasic waveforms (P = 0.93) nor a fixed energy protocol of 200 J compared with a fixed energy protocol of 360 J (P = 0.07) were effect modifiers for energy dose (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). We judged the overall quality of evidence for initial cardioversion success to be high (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Forest plots of RCTs comparing fixed, high energy and low-dose, escalating energy. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.
Figure 2

Forest plots of RCTs comparing fixed, high energy and low-dose, escalating energy. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.

Open in new tabDownload slide

The same four trials (1198 participants) compared cumulative cardioversion success between high-energy shocks and escalating energy protocols.40–43 High-energy shocks did not significantly improve overall cumulative cardioversion success (89 vs. 83%, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93–1.24, I2 = 91%, see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). Subgroup analyses showed significant subgroup effects in favour of antero-posterior pad positioning (P = 0.04) and a fixed energy protocol using 360 J (P = 0.04) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). There was no significant subgroup difference when comparing monophasic waveforms to biphasic waveforms (P = 0.75) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). Quality of evidence for cumulative cardioversion success was moderate due to inconsistency (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Pad positioning

Eleven trials (2166 participants) compared initial cardioversion success between the antero-apical/lateral and antero-posterior pad positioning.44–48,50–53,55,57 The overall rate of initial cardioversion success was 49% for antero-apical/lateral and 42% for antero-posterior (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97–1.39, I2 = 70%, Figure 3A). A subgroup analysis comparing trials that used biphasic waveforms (six trials, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04–1.53, I2 = 71%) and those that used monophasic waveforms (five trials, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73–1.26, I2 = 29%) did not find a significant subgroup effect (P = 0.11) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). A subgroup comparison of the one trial that applied fixed, high-energy shocks (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.97–3.11) and 10 trials that applied escalating energy shocks (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95–1.36, I2 = 71%) did not find a significant subgroup effect for cumulative success (P = 0.17) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). Quality of evidence for initial cardioversion success was low based on inconsistency and imprecision (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Forest plots for RCTs comparing antero-apical/lateral and antero-posterior pad placement. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.
Figure 3

Forest plots for RCTs comparing antero-apical/lateral and antero-posterior pad placement. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Fourteen trials (2451 participants) compared cumulative cardioversion success between antero-apical/lateral and antero-posterior positioning.44–53,55–57 Overall cardioversion success was 80% for the antero-apical/lateral and 77% for the antero-posterior configuration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.06, I2 = 62%, Figure 3B). A subgroup analysis comparing trials that used biphasic waveforms (seven trials, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.10, I2 = 52%) and trials that used monophasic waveforms (seven trials, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87–1.05, I2 = 55%) did not find a significant subgroup effect (P = 0.09). A subgroup comparison of the one trial that applied fixed, high-energy shocks (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.97–3.11) and 10 trials that applied escalating energy shocks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.06, I2 = 61%) did not find a significant subgroup effect for cumulative success (P = 0.07) (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). In the third trials that reported the average number of shocks required to cardiovert, participants randomized to antero-posterior configuration and those randomized to the antero-apical/lateral configuration converted after a mean of 2 ± 1 shocks.46,52,55 Quality of evidence for cumulative cardioversion success was moderate due to inconsistency (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Manual pressure

Two trials (225 participants) compared initial cardioversion success with and without manual pressure.56,58 One trial used paddle electrodes,58 the other trial used manual pressure on top of adhesive electrodes.56 One trial enrolled patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater.56 Both trials applied escalating shocks. Antero-posterior pad positioning was used in one trial and there was an equal distribution of antero-posterior and antero-apical pad positioning in the other. Manual pressure increased initial cardioversion success (42 vs. 20%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.21–3.95, I2 = 34%, Figure 4A). Quality of evidence for initial cardioversion success was high (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Forest plots for RCTs comparing manual pressure and no manual pressure. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.
Figure 4

Forest plots for RCTs comparing manual pressure and no manual pressure. (A) Initial cardioversion success. (B) Cumulative cardioversion success.

Open in new tabDownload slide

The same two trials (225 participants) compared cumulative cardioversion success with and without manual pressure.56,58 Manual pressure application increased cumulative cardioversion success (92 vs. 76%, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06–1.34, I2 = 9%, Figure 4B). Quality of evidence for cumulative cardioversion success was high (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S13).

Other interventions

Nine trials (1031 participants) assessed cardioversion success with other techniques.59,60,62–65 None of these techniques impacted initial nor cumulative cardioversion success (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S10). These techniques included rectilinear/pulsed biphasic compared with biphasic truncated exponential waveform (initial: four trials, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.34, I2 = 0%; cumulative: four trials, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89–1.08, I2 = 84%); and anterior pad as cathode compared with anterior pad as anode (cumulative success: two trials, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92–1.07, I2 = 15%). Supplementary material online, Appendix S13 summarizes the quality of evidence for these pooled estimates.

Adverse events

Reporting of adverse events varied between trials. Serious adverse events such as stroke (reported in one trial), pacemaker implantation (reported in one trial), and ventricular arrhythmia (reported in one trial) were rare (see Supplementary material online, Appendix S11).

Outcomes from observational studies

Biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms were compared in six observational studies (2081 participants). When compared with monophasic waveforms, biphasic waveforms were not associated with significant differences in initial (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97–1.09, I2= 68%) or cumulative (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.29, I2 = 76%) cardioversion success. Fixed, high-energy protocols and escalating energy protocols were compared in two observational studies (779 participants). When compared with fixed, high-energy protocols, escalating energy protocols were associated with higher rates of final cardioversion success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.11, I2 = 0%). Antero-apical/lateral and antero-posterior pad positioning were compared in four observational studies (533 participants). When compared with antero-posterior pads, antero-apical/lateral pads were not associated with significant differences in initial (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89–1.29, I2= 55%) or cumulative cardioversion success (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98–1.10, I2= 0%). Manual pressure was assessed in two observational studies (915 participants). When compared with no pressure, manual pressure was not associated with significant differences in initial cardioversion success (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33–1.86, I2= 79%). However, manual pressure was associated with a higher rate of cumulative cardioversion success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04–1.11, I2 = 4%). Studies that compared waveform properties found similar success with biphasic pulsed energy when compared with biphasic low energy waveform with pulsed biphasic and biphasic truncated exponential waveforms. Forest plots and data for these comparisons appear in Supplementary material online, Appendix S12.

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies identified three techniques that improve cardioversion success for patients with AF. Biphasic shock waveforms nearly doubled initial cardioversion success and increased cumulative success by about 10%. High-energy shocks using at least 200 J increased initial success by approximately 60%. Biphasic, high-energy shocks can increase efficacy and minimize the number of shocks needed for restoration of sinus rhythm. Manual pressure, which was studied primarily in obese patients, resulted in a two-fold increase in success and may be considered in these patients. The optimal electrode position remains unclear. No randomized trial has compared antero-posterior and antero-apical/lateral pad configurations while using biphasic, high-energy shocks.

Biphasic waveforms result in higher initial and cumulative shock success; we rated this evidence as high quality. These findings were consistent when tested across subgroups of biphasic waveform properties and pad position. The superiority of biphasic waveforms is hypothesized to stem from their ability to compensate for transthoracic impedance.32

Fixed, high-energy shocks result in higher initial cardioversion success; we rated this evidence as high quality. Escalating-energy protocols increase until reaching high energy; and as expected, have similar cumulative success as high-energy protocols. Observational series have suggested that this effect may be even more pronounced in patients with longer AF durations.67 Experimental studies on animals have suggested that lower energy settings may reduce skin burns, patient discomfort, and myocardial damage.68 However, such adverse events are rare in clinical practice.40–43 In contrast, minimizing the number of shocks is desirable because it requires less sedation, shortens the overall procedure time, and minimizes patient discomfort.14

Manual pressure with handheld paddles or active compression increases the efficacy of both initial and cumulative cardioversion; we rated this evidence as high quality. These interventions are hypothesized to lower thoracic impedance.69 Although we judged this evidence as high-quality based on the GRADE framework, it has limitations. These studies included only 225 patients, and one study was limited to obese patients.56,58 Clinicians may consider manual pressure using gloved hands on the first attempt in obese patients and during repeated attempts in others.

We found no difference in cardioversion success when comparing antero-posterior to antero-apical/lateral pad position. We rated this evidence as low quality for initial cardioversion success and moderate quality for cumulative success. Importantly, evidence for pad position is limited because it has not been studied in conjunction with the other two techniques known to be effective (i.e. maximal energy and biphasic shocks). Biological arguments support both configurations of pad placement. Antero-posterior placement may result in a more direct shock vector to the atria, resulting in reduced transthoracic impedance, except in patients with larger chests.57,70,71 In contrast, antero-apical/lateral pads may capture more myocardial cells overall.72 Because the effect could differ based on patient anatomy, clinicians may consider the opposite configuration when the first fails.

This review found no significant differences between the biphasic waveform subtypes or differing electrode polarity. These interventions seem unlikely to impact cardioversion success.

Clinical practice guidelines make a number of statements related to cardioversion techniques, but these have not been based on systematic reviews.5–8,73 The 2014 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guidelines discuss high energy, biphasic waveforms, changing shock vectors, and applying pressure to improve energy delivery, but do not make practice recommendations.8,73 The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines recommend (strong recommendation; low-quality evidence) at least a 150 J biphasic waveform for electrical cardioversion.5 These guidelines discuss that pad positioning does not seem to impact efficacy and that manual pressure may facilitate cardioversion in obese patients. The 2020 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines discuss the superiority of biphasic waveforms, but do not make a practice recommendation.7 These guidelines also discuss that anterior–posterior pads are more effective, but offer the caveat that some studies have shown no difference. A practical guidance document that was published by the European Heart Rhythm Association in 2020 states that antero-posterior pad placement is more effective than antero-apical.6 The evidence provided by this systematic review will inform practice recommendations.

Strengths

This is the first systematic review to comprehensively summarize and appraise the evidence on techniques impacting cardioversion success.6,14,74–76 Our protocol was preregistered and our review assessed the methodological quality of individual studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We performed subgroup analyses to assess interventions in the context of other co-interventions.

Limitations

The limitations of this review are inherent to the included studies. The main limitation was the heterogeneous combinations of interventions used in different studies. Although we attempted to assess this using subgroup analyses, these findings should be considered exploratory. Pre-treatment with anti-arrhythmic drugs also varied; it is established to improve acute and long-term success of cardioversion.15 Although included studies did not provide data on long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm, it seems unlikely that these interventions would affect this outcome. Finally, adverse effects were not consistently reported or were not specified across studies.

Conclusions

Biphasic shock waveforms, high-energy shocks, and manual pressure using paddle electrodes or applied on top of adhesive electrodes increase the efficacy of cardioversion of AF. Other interventions, particularly pad placement, require further study. Considering the variability in AF cardioversion success, these findings will help guide future research.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at Europace online.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jo-Anne Petropoulos (McMaster Health Sciences Library) for reviewing our search strategy, Anders Granholm for assessing articles written in Danish, Gera Kisselman for assessing articles written in Russian, Kevin Gu for assessing articles written in Chinese, Meliha Horzum for assessing articles written in Turkish, Omri Nachmani for assessing articles written in Hebrew, and Sergio Conti for assessing articles written in Italian.

Funding

None.

References

1

Lip
GY
,
Tse
H-F
.
Management of atrial fibrillation
.
Lancet
2007
;
370
:
604
–
18
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
2

O’Reilly
DJ
,
Hopkins
RB
,
Healey
JS
,
Dorian
P
,
Sauriol
L
,
Tarride
J-E
et al.
The burden of atrial fibrillation on the hospital sector in Canada
.
Can J Cardiol
2013
;
29
:
229
–
35
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
3

Wodchis
WP
,
Bhatia
RS
,
Leblanc
K
,
Meshkat
N
,
Morra
D
.
A review of the cost of atrial fibrillation
.
Value Health
2012
;
15
:
240
–
8
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
4

Kornej
J
,
Börschel
CS
,
Benjamin
EJ
,
Schnabel
RB
.
Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation in the 21st century: novel methods and new insights
.
Circ Res
2020
;
127
:
4
–
20
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
5

Andrade
JG
,
Aguilar
M
,
Atzema
C
,
Bell
A
,
Cairns
JA
,
Cheung
CC
et al.
The 2020 Canadian cardiovascular society/Canadian heart rhythm society comprehensive guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation
.
Can J Cardiol
2020
;
36
:
1847
–
948
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
6

Brandes
A
,
Crijns
HJ
,
Rienstra
M
,
Kirchhof
P
,
Grove
EL
,
Pedersen
KB
et al.
Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter revisited: current evidence and practical guidance for a common procedure
.
EP Europace
2020
;
22
:
1149
–
61
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
7

Hindricks
G
,
Potpara
T
,
Dagres
N
,
Arbelo
E
,
Bax
JJ
,
Blomström-Lundqvist
C
et al.
2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS) the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European society of cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the European heart rhythm association (EHRA) of the ESC
.
Eur Heart J
2021
;
42
:
373
–
498
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
8

January
CT
,
Wann
LS
,
Calkins
H
,
Chen
LY
,
Cigarroa
JE
,
Cleveland
JC
et al.
2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2019
;
74
:
104
–
32
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
9

Kuppahally
SS
,
Foster
E
,
Shoor
S
,
Steimle
AE
.
Short-term and long-term success of electrical cardioversion in atrial fibrillation in managed care system
.
Int Arch Med
2009
;
2
:
39
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
10

Frick
M
,
Frykman
V
,
Jensen-Urstad
M
,
Östergren
J
.
Factors predicting success rate and recurrence of atrial fibrillation after first electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation
.
Clin Cardiol
2001
;
24
:
238
–
44
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
11

Van Gelder
IC
,
Crijns
HJ
,
Van Gilst
WH
,
Verwer
R
,
Lie
KI
.
Prediction of uneventful cardioversion and maintenance of sinus rhythm from direct-current electrical cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation and flutter
.
Am J Cardiol
1991
;
68
:
41
–
6
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
12

Scheuermeyer
FX
,
Andolfatto
G
,
Christenson
J
,
Villa-Roel
C
,
Rowe
B
.
A multicenter randomized trial to evaluate a chemical-first or electrical-first cardioversion strategy for patients with uncomplicated acute atrial fibrillation
.
Acad Emerg Med
2019
;
26
:
969
–
81
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
13

Burton
JH
,
Vinson
DR
,
Drummond
K
,
Strout
TD
,
Thode
HC
,
McInturff
JJ
.
Electrical cardioversion of emergency department patients with atrial fibrillation
.
Ann Emerg Med
2004
;
44
:
20
–
30
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
14

Kim
SS
,
Knight
BP
.
Electrical and pharmacologic cardioversion for atrial fibrillation
.
Cardiol Clin
2009
;
27
:
95
–
107
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
15

Um
KJ
,
McIntyre
WF
,
Healey
JS
,
Mendoza
PA
,
Koziarz
A
,
Amit
G
et al.
Pre-and post-treatment with amiodarone for elective electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Europace
2019
;
21
:
856
–
63
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
16

Nguyen
ST
,
Belley-Côté
EP
,
Lengyel
A
,
Qiu
Y
,
Adli
T
,
Um
KJ
et al.
Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the success of electrical cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation: a scoping review protocol
.
Med Case Rep Study Protocols
2021
;
2
:
e0133
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
17

Higgins
J
,
Green
S
.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1. 0)
.
London, England
:
The Cochrane Collaboration
;
2011
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
18

Busse
JW
,
Guyatt
GH
. Tool to assess risk of bias in cohort studies [cited 2020 July 31]. Available from:
https://www.evidencepartners.com/resources/methodological-resources.

19

Busse
JW
,
Guyatt
GH
. Tool to assess risk of bias in case-control studies [cited 2020 July 31]. Available from:
https://www.evidencepartners.com/resources/methodological-resources.

20

Higgins
JP
,
Altman
DG
,
Gøtzsche
PC
,
Jüni
P
,
Moher
D
,
Oxman
AD
et al.
The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
.
BMJ
2011
;
343
:
d5928
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
21

Guyatt
G
,
Oxman
AD
,
Akl
EA
,
Kunz
R
,
Vist
G
,
Brozek
J
et al.
GRADE Guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
.
J Clin Epidemiol
2011
;
64
:
383
–
94
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
22

Ambler
JJ
,
Deakin
CD
.
A randomized controlled trial of efficacy and ST change following use of the welch-allyn MRL PIC biphasic waveform versus damped sine monophasic waveform for external DC cardioversion
.
Resuscitation
2006
;
71
:
146
–
51
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
23

Kawabata
VS
,
Vianna
CB
,
Moretti
MA
,
Gonzalez
MM
,
Ferreira
JF
,
Timerman
S
et al.
Monophasic versus biphasic waveform shocks for atrial fibrillation cardioversion in patients with concomitant amiodarone therapy
.
Europace
2007
;
9
:
143
–
6
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
24

Khaykin
Y
,
Newman
D
,
Kowalewski
M
,
Korley
V
,
Dorian
P
.
Biphasic versus monophasic cardioversion in shock-resistant atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial
.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2003
;
14
:
868
–
72
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
25

Kirchhof
P
,
Mönnig
G
,
Wasmer
K
,
Heinecke
A
,
Breithardt
G
,
Eckardt
L
et al.
A trial of self-adhesive patch electrodes and hand-held paddle electrodes for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (MOBIPAPA)
.
Eur Heart J
2005
;
26
:
1292
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
26

Kmec
J
.
Comparison the effectiveness of damped sine wave monophasic and rectilinear biphasic shocks in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation
.
Kardiologia
2006
;
15
:
265
–
78
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
27

Kosior
DA
,
Opolski
G
,
Tadeusiak
W
,
Chwyczko
T
,
Wozakowska-Kaplon
B
,
Stawicki
S
et al.
Serum troponin I and myoglobin after monophasic versus biphasic transthoracic shocks for cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation
.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
2005
;
28
:
S128
–
S32
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
28

Koster
RW
,
Dorian
P
,
Chapman
FW
,
Schmitt
PW
,
O’Grady
SG
,
Walker
RG
.
A randomized trial comparing monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Am Heart J
2004
;
147
:
e1
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
29

Krasteva
V
,
Trendafilova
E
,
Cansell
A
,
Daskalov
I
.
Assessment of balanced biphasic defibrillation waveforms in transthoracic atrial cardioversion
.
J Med Eng Technol
2001
;
25
:
68
–
73
.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
30

Manegold
JC
,
Israel
CW
,
Ehrlich
JR
,
Duray
G
,
Pajitnev
D
,
Wegener
FT
et al.
External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in patients with implanted pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator systems: a randomized comparison of monophasic and biphasic shock energy application
.
Eur Heart J
2007
;
28
:
1731
–
8
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
31

Marinsek
M
,
Larkin
GL
,
Zohar
P
,
Bervar
M
,
Pekolj-Bicanic
M
,
Mocnik
FS
et al.
Efficacy and impact of monophasic versus biphasic countershocks for transthoracic cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation
.
Am J Cardiol
2003
;
92
:
988
–
91
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
32

Mittal
S
,
Ayati
S
,
Stein
KM
,
Schwartzman
D
,
Cavlovich
D
,
Tchou
PJ
et al.
Transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of rectilinear biphasic versus damped sine wave monophasic shocks
.
Circulation
2000
;
101
:
1282
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
33

Neumann
T
,
Erdogan
A
,
Reiner
C
,
Siemon
G
,
Kurzidim
K
,
Berkowitsch
A
et al.
Ambulatory electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation by means of biphasic versus monophasic shock delivery. A prospective randomized study
.
Z Kardiol
2004
;
93
:
381
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
34

Page
RL
,
Kerber
RE
,
Russell
JK
,
Trouton
T
,
Waktare
J
,
Gallik
D
et al.
Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation: the results of an international randomized, double-blind multicenter trial
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2002
;
39
:
1956
–
63
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
35

Ricard
P
,
Levy
S
,
Boccara
G
,
Lakhal
E
,
Bardy
G
.
External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of biphasic vs monophasic waveform shocks
.
EP Europace
2001
;
3
:
96
–
9
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
36

Santomauro
M
,
Borrelli
A
,
Ottaviano
L
,
Costanzo
A
,
Monteforte
N
,
Duilio
C
et al.
Cardioversione elettrica esterna in pazienti con fibrillazione atriale: confronto fra tre differenti forme di onda
.
Ital Heart J Suppl
2004
;
5
:
36
–
43
.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
37

Siaplaouras
S
,
Buob
A
,
Rötter
C
,
Böhm
M
,
Jung
J
.
Impact of biphasic electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation on early recurrent atrial fibrillation and shock efficacy
.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2004
;
15
:
895
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
38

Stanaitienė
G
,
Babarskienė
RM
.
Impact of electrical shock waveform and paddle positions on efficacy of direct current cardioversion for atrial fibrillation
.
Medicina (B Aires)
2008
;
44
:
665
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
39

Vaisman
M
,
Bittencourt
M
,
Rey
H
,
Rangel
F
,
Rocha
R
,
Costa Filho
R
et al.
Comparison of monophasic versus biphasic cardioversion for atrial fibrillation
.
Critical Care
2005
;
9
:
1
–
2
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
40

Boodhoo
L
,
Mitchell
AR
,
Bordoli
G
,
Lloyd
G
,
Patel
N
,
Sulke
N
.
DC Cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation: a comparison of two protocols
.
Int J Cardiol
2007
;
114
:
16
–
21
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
41

Glover
BM
,
Walsh
SJ
,
McCann
CJ
,
Moore
MJ
,
Manoharan
G
,
Dalzell
GW
et al.
Biphasic energy selection for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. The BEST AF trial
.
Heart
2008
;
94
:
884
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
42

Gotcheva
N
,
Trendafilova
E
,
Dimitrova
E
,
Krasteva
V
,
Alexandrov
A
,
Kostova
E
et al.
Individualized protocol for cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation
.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care
2015
;
4
:
79
–
80
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
43

Schmidt
AS
,
Lauridsen
KG
,
Torp
P
,
Bach
LF
,
Rickers
H
,
Løfgren
B
.
Maximum-fixed energy shocks for cardioverting atrial fibrillation
.
Eur Heart J
2020
;
41
:
626
–
31
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
44

Alp
N
,
Rahman
S
,
Bell
J
,
Shahi
M
.
Randomised comparison of antero-lateral versus antero-posterior paddle positions for DC cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation
.
Int J Cardiol
2000
;
75
:
211
–
6
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
45

Botto
G
,
Politi
A
,
Bonini
W
,
Broffoni
T
,
Bonatti
R
.
External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: role of paddle position on technical efficacy and energy requirements
.
Heart
1999
;
82
:
726
–
30
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
46

Braždžionytė
J
,
Babarskienė
RM
,
Stanaitienė
G
.
Anteriorposterior versus anterior-lateral electrode position for biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Medicina (Kaunas)
.
2006
;
42
:
994
–
8
.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
47

Chen
C-J
,
Guo
GB-F
.
External cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation A reappraisal of the effects of electrode pad position and transthoracic impedance on cardioversion success
.
Jpn Heart J
2003
;
44
:
921
–
32
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
48

Kirchhof
P
,
Eckardt
L
,
Loh
P
,
Weber
K
,
Fischer
R-J
,
Seidl
K-H
et al.
Anterior-posterior versus anterior-lateral electrode positions for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a randomised trial
.
Lancet
2002
;
360
:
1275
–
9
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
49

Mathew
T
,
Moore
A
,
McIntyre
M
,
Harbinson
M
,
Campbell
N
,
Adgey
A
et al.
Randomised comparison of electrode positions for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Heart
1999
;
81
:
576
–
9
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
50

Muñoz-Martínez
T
,
Castañeda-Saiz
A
,
Vinuesa-Lozano
C
,
Aretxabala-Kortajarena
N
,
Dudagoitia-Otaolea
J
,
Iribarren-Diarasarri
S
et al.
Electrode position in elective electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. A randomized study
.
Med Intensiva
2009
;
34
:
225
–
30
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
51

Schmidt
AS
,
Lauridsen
KG
,
Møller
DS
,
Christensen
PD
,
Dodt
KK
,
Rickers
H
et al.
Anterior-Lateral versus anterior-posterior electrode position for cardioverting atrial fibrillation
.
Circulation
2021
;
144
:
1995
–
2003
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
52

Siaplaouras
S
,
Buob
A
,
Rötter
C
,
Böhm
M
,
Jung
J
.
Randomized comparison of anterolateral versus anteroposterior electrode position for biphasic external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Am Heart J
2005
;
150
:
150
–
2
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
53

Stiell
IG
,
Sivilotti
ML
,
Taljaard
M
,
Birnie
D
,
Vadeboncoeur
A
,
Hohl
CM
et al.
Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomised trial
.
Lancet
2020
;
395
:
339
–
49
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
54

Tuinenburg
AE
,
Van Gelder
IC
,
Tieleman
RG
,
Grijns
HJGM
.
No difference in efficacy and safety of the anterolateral versus the anteroposterior paddle position during external DC-countershock for atrial arrhythmia
.
Eur Heart J
1997
;
18
:
540
.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
55

Vogiatzis
IA
,
Sachpekidis
V
,
Vogiatzis
IM
,
Kambitsi
E
,
Karamitsos
T
,
Samanidis
D
et al.
External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: the role of electrode position on cardioversion success
.
Int J Cardiol
2009
;
137
:
e8-e10
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
56

Voskoboinik
A
,
Moskovitch
J
,
Plunkett
G
,
Bloom
J
,
Wong
G
,
Nalliah
C
et al.
Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in obese patients: results from the cardioversion-BMI randomized controlled trial
.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
2019
;
30
:
155
–
61
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
57

Walsh
SJ
,
McCarty
D
,
McClelland
AJ
,
Owens
CG
,
Trouton
TG
,
Harbinson
MT
et al.
Impedance compensated biphasic waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a multi-centre comparison of antero-apical and antero-posterior pad positions
.
Eur Heart J
2005
;
26
:
1298
–
302
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
58

Squara
F
,
Elbaum
C
,
Garret
G
,
Liprandi
L
,
Scarlatti
D
,
Bun
S-S
et al.
Active compression versus standard anterior-posterior defibrillation for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a prospective randomized study
.
Heart Rhythm
2021
;
18
:
360
–
5
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
59

Alatawi
F
,
Gurevitz
O
,
White
RD
,
Ammash
NM
,
Malouf
JF
,
Bruce
CJ
et al.
Prospective, randomized comparison of two biphasic waveforms for the efficacy and safety of transthoracic biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Heart Rhythm
2005
;
2
:
382
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
60

Deakin
CD
,
Connelly
S
,
Wharton
R
,
Yuen
HM
.
A comparison of rectilinear and truncated exponential biphasic waveforms in elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: a prospective randomized controlled trial
.
Resuscitation
2013
;
84
:
286
–
91
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
61

Kim
ML
,
Kim
SG
,
Park
DS
,
Gross
JN
,
Ferrick
KJ
,
Palma
EC
et al.
Comparison of rectilinear biphasic waveform energy versus truncated exponential biphasic waveform energy for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Am J Cardiol
2004
;
94
:
1438
–
40
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
62

Neal
S
,
Ngarmukos
T
,
Lessard
D
,
Rosenthal
L
.
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two biphasic defibrillator waveforms for the conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm
.
Am J Cardiol
2003
;
92
:
810
–
4
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
63

Schmidt
AS
,
Lauridsen
KG
,
Adelborg
K
,
Torp
P
,
Bach
LF
,
Jepsen
SM
et al.
Cardioversion efficacy using pulsed biphasic or biphasic truncated exponential waveforms: a randomized clinical trial
.
J Am Heart Assoc
2017
;
6
:
e004853
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
64

Oral
H
,
Brinkman
K
,
Pelosi
F
,
Flemming
M
,
Tse
H-F
,
Kim
MH
et al.
Effect of electrode polarity on the energy required for transthoracic atrial defibrillation
.
Am J Cardiol
1999
;
84
:
228
–
30
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
65

Rashba
EJ
,
Bouhouch
R
,
MacMurdy
KA
,
Shorofsky
SR
,
Peters
RW
,
Gold
MR
.
Effect of shock polarity on the efficacy of transthoracic atrial defibrillation
.
Am Heart J
2002
;
143
:
541
–
5
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
66

Bassler
D
,
Briel
M
,
Montori
VM
,
Lane
M
,
Glasziou
P
,
Zhou
Q
et al.
Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
.
JAMA
2010
;
303
:
1180
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
67

Gallagher
MM
,
Guo
X-H
,
Poloniecki
JD
,
Guan Yap
Y
,
Ward
D
,
Camm
AJ
.
Initial energy setting, outcome and efficiency in direct current cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2001
;
38
:
1498
–
504
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
68

Ditchey
RV
,
LeWinter
MM
.
Effects of direct-current electrical shocks on systolic and diastolic left ventricular function in dogs
.
Am Heart J
1983
;
105
:
727
–
31
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
69

Deakin
CD
,
Sado
DM
,
Petley
GW
,
Clewlow
F
.
Differential contribution of skin impedance and thoracic volume to transthoracic impedance during external defibrillation
.
Resuscitation
2004
;
60
:
171
–
4
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
70

Ewy
GA
.
Optimal technique for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
.
Circulation
1992
;
86
:
1645
–
7
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
71

Kerber
R
,
Grayzel
J
,
Hoyt
R
,
Marcus
M
,
Kennedy
J
.
Transthoracic resistance in human defibrillation. Influence of body weight, chest size, serial shocks, paddle size and paddle contact pressure
.
Circulation
1981
;
63
:
676
–
82
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
72

Tung
L
,
Sliz
N
,
Mulligan
MR
.
Influence of electrical axis of stimulation on excitation of cardiac muscle cells
.
Circ Res
1991
;
69
:
722
–
30
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
73

January
CT
,
Wann
LS
,
Alpert
JS
,
Calkins
H
,
Cigarroa
JE
,
Cleveland
JC
et al.
2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
2014
;
64
:
e1
–
e76
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
74

Adgey
A
,
Walsh
S
.
Theory and practice of defibrillation:(1) atrial fibrillation and DC conversion
.
Heart
2004
;
90
:
1493
–
8
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
75

Inácio
JFS
,
MdSG
dR
,
Shah
J
,
Rosario
J
,
Vissoci
JRN
,
Manica
ALL
et al.
Monophasic and biphasic shock for transthoracic conversion of atrial fibrillation: systematic review and network meta-analysis
.
Resuscitation
2016
;
100
:
66
–
75
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
76

Kirkland
S
,
Stiell
I
,
AlShawabkeh
T
,
Campbell
S
,
Dickinson
G
,
Rowe
BH
.
The efficacy of pad placement for electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation/flutter: a systematic review
.
Acad Emerg Med
2014
;
21
:
717
–
26
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Author notes

Conflict of interest: None declared.

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]
Topic:
Issue Section:
Clinical Research
Download all slides
  • Supplementary data

    • Supplementary data

    euac199_Supplementary_Data - docx file