Shock Energy for Electrical Cardioversion of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
NCT ID: NCT05903170
Last Updated: 2025-04-01
Study Results
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.
RECRUITING
NA
100 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-08-31
2026-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The main question it aims to answer is whether either device is more likely to cardiovert patients referred for atrial fibrillation.
Participants will be randomized to undergo cardioversion with one of two defibrillators at either 200J or 360J. Participants in each arm will undergo up to three shocks at the energy-level to which they have been randomized, using a standardized procedure. For participants randomized to the lower energy level who fail to return to normal rhythm after three shocks, they will be given a fourth shock at the higher energy level.
All participants will then be asked to undertake a blood test the day following the cardioversion, and receive a follow up phone call. These are to ensure there is no difference in the safety of the procedure between the two energy levels. It is worth noting that these two components of the study (the blood test and phone call) are the only additional time commitment that is expected to be involved if you choose to participate in the study.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Anteroposterior Versus Anterolateral Electrode Position for Electrical Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation
NCT05511389
The Safety and Efficacy of Pulsed Field Ablation for Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Comorbid With HFpEF.
NCT07077811
Computer Simulated Atrial Fibrillation Tool
NCT03080857
Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Ablation to Prevent Disease Progression of AF-induced Atrial Cardiomyopathy in Women and Men
NCT06200311
SL-AF Trial - (Six Lead Identification of Atrial Fibrillation [AF])
NCT02401451
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Strategies for the management of atrial fibrillation include rate control, prophylaxis against stroke, lifestyle modification, and restoration of sinus rhythm through medical or electrical cardioversion. Electrical cardioversion for the restoration of sinus rhythm was first described by Lown and colleagues in 1962, and has undergone a number of procedural advances in the intervening six decades. Chief amongst these was a transition from cardioverting using monophasic to biphasic waveforms, something unequivocally demonstrated to increase cardioversion success, with lower energy, current, and less skin and muscle damage than monophasic devices. Yet the majority of the data which continues to guide cardioversion is derived from the era of monophasic therapy.
Data from cardioversion with monophasic waveforms suggests that the use of higher initial shock energy is associated with higher first shock success, fewer shocks, and lower levels of skeletal muscle injury, with no increase in troponin to suggest greater cardiac injury. Likewise, studies of shock energy using biphasic devices have demonstrated benefit of maximum fixed shock energy. However, whilst the energy of a defibrillator remains entrenched in the descriptive vocabulary of cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, it is the flow of current across the myocardium that achieves cardioversion, and resuscitation guidelines have previously recommended a switch to the more physiologic current-based description.
Different defibrillators deliver different currents at the same energy setting based on the capacitance of the device. As such, manufacturers of defibrillators recommend different energy levels for cardioverting atrial fibrillation with some standard biphasic defibrillators (Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator) unable to deliver higher than 200J energy, while some (Lifepak 15 Monitor/Defibrillator) extend to 360J. No studies have compared initial 200J vs. 360J shock energies between these devices for cardioverting persistent atrial fibrillation.
This study is a single centre randomized non-blinded study of the effectiveness of 200J vs. 360J fixed output biphasic electrical cardioversion in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation. The study hypothesis is that cardioversion with shock energy fixed to 360J delivered by a LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator is more efficacious than a 200J delivered by a Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator, without worsening safety outcomes.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
Participants in each arm will undergo up to three shocks at the energy-level to which they have been randomized, using a standardized procedure. For participants randomized to the lower energy level who fail to return to normal rhythm after three shocks, they will be given a fourth shock at the higher energy level.
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
360J LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator
The standardised cardioversion protocol below performed with a 360J shock from a Lifepak Monitor/Defibrillator.
1. First shock with anteroposterior pad configuration
2. In event of failure of the above, a second shock with anterolateral pad configuration
3. In event of failure of the above, a third shock with anteroposterior pad configuration + manual pad pressure
360J LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator
The LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator is a commonly-used defibrillator in New Zealand hospitals for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. It delivers a biphasic waveform shock with a titratable maximum energy of 360J.
200J Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator
The standardised cardioversion protocol below performed with a 200J shock from a Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator.
1. First shock with anteroposterior pad configuration
2. In event of failure of the above, a second shock with anterolateral pad configuration
3. In event of failure of the above, a third shock with anteroposterior pad configuration + manual pad pressure
4. The addition of a fourth 'rescue' shock at 360J using the LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator with pads in the anteroposterior configuration in the event of the first three steps failing to cardiovert to sinus rhythm
200J Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator
The Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator is a commonly-used defibrillator in New Zealand hospitals for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. It delivers a biphasic waveform shock with a titratable maximum energy of 200J.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
360J LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator
The LifePak Monitor/Defibrillator is a commonly-used defibrillator in New Zealand hospitals for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. It delivers a biphasic waveform shock with a titratable maximum energy of 360J.
200J Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator
The Philips HeartStart MRx Monitor/Defibrillator is a commonly-used defibrillator in New Zealand hospitals for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. It delivers a biphasic waveform shock with a titratable maximum energy of 200J.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients undergoing either elective outpatient or non-emergent inpatient cardioversion for atrial fibrillation
* Eligible for anticoagulation
* Reliably anticoagulated for ≥three weeks prior to cardioversion, AF onset within 48hrs of cardioversion, or left atrial thrombus excluded on transoesophageal echocardiogram
* Able to consent to cardioversion, and study participation
Exclusion Criteria
* Atrial flutter
* Emergent cardioversion
* Implantable cardiac device (PPM or ICD)
* Unable to consent to cardioversion and/or study participation
* Pregnancy
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Wellington Hospital
OTHER_GOV
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Allan Plant
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Allan Plant, FRACP
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Wellington Hospital
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Wellington Regional Hospital
Wellington, Wellington Region, New Zealand
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Boos C, Thomas MD, Jones A, Clarke E, Wilbourne G, More RS. Higher energy monophasic DC cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation: is it time to start at 360 joules? Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2003 Apr;8(2):121-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1542-474x.2003.08205.x.
ECC Committee, Subcommittees and Task Forces of the American Heart Association. 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2005 Dec 13;112(24 Suppl):IV1-203. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.166550. Epub 2005 Nov 28. No abstract available.
Lippi G, Sanchis-Gomar F, Cervellin G. Global epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: An increasing epidemic and public health challenge. Int J Stroke. 2021 Feb;16(2):217-221. doi: 10.1177/1747493019897870. Epub 2020 Jan 19.
Joglar JA, Hamdan MH, Ramaswamy K, Zagrodzky JD, Sheehan CJ, Nelson LL, Andrews TC, Page RL. Initial energy for elective external cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2000 Aug 1;86(3):348-50. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)00932-2.
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 May;147(5):e20. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2003.10.049.
Page RL, Kerber RE, Russell JK, Trouton T, Waktare J, Gallik D, Olgin JE, Ricard P, Dalzell GW, Reddy R, Lazzara R, Lee K, Carlson M, Halperin B, Bardy GH; BiCard Investigators. 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 Jun 19;39(12):1956-63. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)01898-3.
Schmidt AS, Lauridsen KG, Torp P, Bach LF, Rickers H, Lofgren B. Maximum-fixed energy shocks for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2020 Feb 1;41(5):626-631. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz585.
Staerk L, Wang B, Preis SR, Larson MG, Lubitz SA, Ellinor PT, McManus DD, Ko D, Weng LC, Lunetta KL, Frost L, Benjamin EJ, Trinquart L. Lifetime risk of atrial fibrillation according to optimal, borderline, or elevated levels of risk factors: cohort study based on longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ. 2018 Apr 26;361:k1453. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1453.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
WRH DCCV
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.