European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on June 14, 2007
European Heart Journal 2007 28(14):1731-1738; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm211
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in patients with implanted pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator systems: a randomized comparison of monophasic and biphasic shock energy application


Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, J. W. Goethe University Hospital, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany
Received 18 January 2007; revised 17 April 2007; accepted 3 May 2007; online publish-ahead-of-print 14 June 2007.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 69 6301 7404; fax: +49 69 6301 7017. E-mail address: hohnloser{at}em.uni-frankfurt.de
See page 1668 for the editorial comment on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm214)
Aims: External cardioversion (ECV) of atrial fibrillation (AF) may damage implanted pacemaker and cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems. This prospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ECV comparing mono- to biphasic shock waveforms in patients with implanted rhythm devices.
Methods and results: Patients with pacemaker or ICD systems and an indication for ECV were randomized to receive mono- or biphasic shocks. Systems were tested immediately before and after ECV, 1 h and 1 week later with respect to device and lead integrity. Forty-four patients (71 ± 10 years, 31 male; 29 pacemakers, 12 ICDs, three cardiac resynchronization systems) underwent ECV with antero-posterior paddle orientation (monophasic in 21 and biphasic in 23 patients). Pacing impedances were reduced immediately after ECV (atrial 402392
, P < 0.001; ventricular 517496
, P = 0.001) and returned to baseline values within 1 week. Ventricular sensing was reduced immediately after ECV (12.411.6 mV, P = 0.004). There was no device or lead dysfunction in any patient. ECV was successful in 42/44 patients (95%), cumulative energy was significantly lower for biphasic compared with monophasic shocks (P = 0.001).
Conclusion: ECV for AF seems to be safe and effective in patients with implanted rhythm devices.
Key Words: Cardioversion Monophasic shocks Biphasic shocks Pacemaker Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator Atrial fibrillation
Both authors contributed equally to this study.
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in EHJ:
- External cardioversion in patients with implanted cardiac devices: is there a problem?
- Michael D. Gammage
EHJ 2007 28: 1668-1669.[Extract] [Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Cardioversion in Patients with Pacemakers Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, August 17, 2007; 2007(817): 3 - 3. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
M. D. Gammage External cardioversion in patients with implanted cardiac devices: is there a problem? Eur. Heart J., July 2, 2007; 28(14): 1668 - 1669. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||

