Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Summary

Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder. For patients suffering atrial fibrillation direct current cardioversion is performed to reduce patients symptoms and prevent disease progression. The optimal energy selection for biphasic cardioversion is unknown.

We aim to investigate the efficiency and safety of a high energy shock protocol (360 J) versus a standard escalating shock protocol (125-150-200 J) in cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.


Clinical Trial Description

The optimal energy selection for biphasic direct current (DC) cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is unknown. The energy delivered should be sufficient to achieve prompt cardioversion but without the risk of inducing any potential injury e.g. skin burns, myocardial stunning or post-cardioversion arrhythmias. The use of an escalating protocol, with a low energy initial shock, has been considered conventional practice, originally to avoid post cardioversion arrhythmias when using monophasic shocks.(1) This practice has been directly transferred to biphasic cardioversion. The European Society of Cardiology 2016 guidelines (2) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2014 guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation (3) do not recommend any specific energy settings, whereas the European Resuscitation Council 2010 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (4) recommend a starting energy level of 120-200 J with subsequent escalating energy setting.

Previously, a non-escalating protocol (200 J) (5) has been found to have a significantly higher first shock success resulting in fewer shock deliveries without compromising safety compared with a low energy escalating shock protocol (100-150-200 J). Further, a study found fewer arrhythmic complications with increasing energy suggesting an 'upper limit of vulnerability'. It is well-established that biphasic shocks induce fewer post-shock arrhythmias (6), skin burns (7) and shorter periods of myocardial stunning compared with monophasic shocks.(8) Importantly, no correlation between increasing biphasic energy delivery and any complications was found in these studies. Nonetheless, the efficiency and safety of a high energy shock (360 J) biphasic protocol compared with a conventional low energy escalating protocol is unknown. Accordingly, this study aims to compare the efficiency and safety of a high energy protocol (360-360-360 J) versus a standard escalating protocol (125-150-200 J). We hypothesise that a high energy cardioversion protocol is more effective compared to standard escalating energy protocol, without compromising safety. ;


Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


NCT number NCT02923414
Study type Interventional
Source University of Aarhus
Contact
Status Completed
Phase N/A
Start date September 28, 2016
Completion date March 8, 2019

See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Recruiting NCT05654272 - Development of CIRC Technologies
Completed NCT04571385 - A Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of AP30663 for Cardioversion in Participants With Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Phase 2
Terminated NCT04115735 - His Bundle Recording From Subclavian Vein
Completed NCT05366803 - Women's Health Initiative Silent Atrial Fibrillation Recording Study N/A
Completed NCT02864758 - Benefit-Risk Of Arterial THrombotic prEvention With Rivaroxaban for Atrial Fibrillation in France
Recruiting NCT05442203 - Electrocardiogram-based Artificial Intelligence-assisted Detection of Heart Disease N/A
Completed NCT05599308 - Evaluation of Blood Pressure Monitor With AFib Screening Feature N/A
Completed NCT03790917 - Assessment of Adherence to New Oral anTicoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation patiEnts Within the Outpatient registrY
Enrolling by invitation NCT05890274 - Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Electrocardiogram (EKG) Interpretation Project ECHO N/A
Recruiting NCT05316870 - Construction and Effect Evaluation of Anticoagulation Management Model in Atrial Fibrillation N/A
Recruiting NCT05266144 - Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With Catheter Ablation
Not yet recruiting NCT06023784 - The Impact of LBBAP vs RVP on the Incidence of New-onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Atrioventricular Block N/A
Recruiting NCT05572814 - Transform: Teaching, Technology, and Teams N/A
Recruiting NCT04092985 - Smart Watch iECG for the Detection of Cardiac Arrhythmias
Completed NCT04087122 - Evaluate the Efficiency Impact of Conducting Active Temperature Management During Cardiac Cryoablation Procedures N/A
Completed NCT06283654 - Relieving the Emergency Department by Using a 1-lead ECG Device for Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Pulmonary Vein Isolation
Recruiting NCT05416086 - iCLAS™ Cryoablation System Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) Study N/A
Completed NCT05067114 - Solutions for Atrial Fibrillation Edvocacy (SAFE)
Completed NCT04546763 - Study Watch AF Detection At Home
Completed NCT03761394 - Pulsewatch: Smartwatch Monitoring for Atrial Fibrillation After Stroke N/A