Comparison of High Versus Escalating Shocks in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

276 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-09-28

Study Completion Date

2019-03-08

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

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.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

Electrode Positions in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation

NCT03817372

Atrial Fibrillation

COMPLETED NA

Comparison of Oxygen Interventions and Defibrillator Efficiency

NCT02317029

Atrial Fibrillation Atrial Flutter

TERMINATED NA

Selection of Shock Energy in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

NCT00472147

Sudden Cardiac Death Arrhythmia Survival

UNKNOWN NA

Changes in Myocardial Perfusion During Chronic Multi Site Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Apex Pacing in Patients With Normal Left Ventricular Function Undergoing His Bundle Ablation for Drug-refractory Atrial Fibrillation

NCT00528307

Atrial Fibrillation

TERMINATED NA

Antero-posterior Versus Antero-lateral Electrode Position for Electrical Cardioversion of Typical Atrial Flutter

NCT00860314

Atrial Flutter

TERMINATED NA

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

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.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Atrial Fibrillation

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Standard escalating shocks

Patients will be randomized to a standard escalating shock protocol using the energy settings: 125, 150, 200 J. All cardioversion attempts will be performed using LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Standard escalating shocks

Intervention Type DEVICE

125 J, 150 J, 200 J

High energy shocks

Patients will be randomized to a high energy shock protocol using the energy settings: 360, 360, 360 J. All cardioversion attempts will be performed using LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

High energy shock protocol

Intervention Type DEVICE

360 J, 360 J, 360 J.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Standard escalating shocks

125 J, 150 J, 200 J

Intervention Type DEVICE

High energy shock protocol

360 J, 360 J, 360 J.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* \>18 years of age, scheduled for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Patients with atrial fibrillation for ≤48 hours may be cardioverted immediately. Patients with atrial fibrillation for \>48 hours will be required to have a documented weekly international normalized ratio (INR) ≥2.0 (including within 48 hours of cardioversion) or treatment with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant for three weeks or longer. Alternatively, a transoesophageal echocardiogram documenting absence of intracardiac thrombi is accepted and cardioversion can be performed on treatment with low molecular weight heparin.