Background: Outpatient electrical cardioversion (EC) of atrial fibrillation is currently the standard of care. Shock-related arrhythmias may be particularly deleterious in this setting. Preoperative identification of high-risk patients may be very useful. Methods: A retrospective analysis was made of 543 consecutive elective EC procedures in 457 outpatients over an 8-year period in a university cardiological institute. The protocol included adequate anticoagulation, intravenous anesthesia, direct current shock, and a direct observation after a shock to detect procedure-related complications. No patients were excluded due to severity of pathology or comorbidities. Clinical characteristics, energy delivered, medications, arrhythmic phenomena, and predictors of success and complications were analyzed. Results: Of 543 ECs performed, 88.2% restored sinus rhythm, which persisted at discharge in 83.2%. No anesthesia-related complications were detected. No thromboembolic complications were detected. Use of a biphasic cardioverter was the only predictor of success (P = 0.0001). The bradyarrhythmic complication rate was 1.5%. No ventricular arrhythmic events were detected. Atrial flutter was present in five of eight patients who developed complications versus 44 of 535 patients who had no complications (P < 0.0005), and prosthetic heart valves in four of eight complicated versus 40 of 535 uncomplicated cases (P = 0.0044). The combination of atrial flutter and prosthetic heart valve was found in four of eight complicated versus 11 of 535 uncomplicated cases (P < 0.0005). Conclusion: Shock-related arrhythmias are essentially bradyarrhythmias. Atrial flutter and previous cardiac surgery identify a subgroup of patients at high risk of postshock bradyarrhythmic complications.

Outpatients electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: 8 years' experience. Analysis of shock-related arrhythmias.

CICOIRA, Mariantonietta;VASSANELLI, Corrado
2009-01-01

Abstract

Background: Outpatient electrical cardioversion (EC) of atrial fibrillation is currently the standard of care. Shock-related arrhythmias may be particularly deleterious in this setting. Preoperative identification of high-risk patients may be very useful. Methods: A retrospective analysis was made of 543 consecutive elective EC procedures in 457 outpatients over an 8-year period in a university cardiological institute. The protocol included adequate anticoagulation, intravenous anesthesia, direct current shock, and a direct observation after a shock to detect procedure-related complications. No patients were excluded due to severity of pathology or comorbidities. Clinical characteristics, energy delivered, medications, arrhythmic phenomena, and predictors of success and complications were analyzed. Results: Of 543 ECs performed, 88.2% restored sinus rhythm, which persisted at discharge in 83.2%. No anesthesia-related complications were detected. No thromboembolic complications were detected. Use of a biphasic cardioverter was the only predictor of success (P = 0.0001). The bradyarrhythmic complication rate was 1.5%. No ventricular arrhythmic events were detected. Atrial flutter was present in five of eight patients who developed complications versus 44 of 535 patients who had no complications (P < 0.0005), and prosthetic heart valves in four of eight complicated versus 40 of 535 uncomplicated cases (P = 0.0044). The combination of atrial flutter and prosthetic heart valve was found in four of eight complicated versus 11 of 535 uncomplicated cases (P < 0.0005). Conclusion: Shock-related arrhythmias are essentially bradyarrhythmias. Atrial flutter and previous cardiac surgery identify a subgroup of patients at high risk of postshock bradyarrhythmic complications.
2009
atrial fibrillation electrical cardioversion outpatients
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/337873
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact