Light em up. Or not?

Posted on by

IG Stiell, MLA Sivilotti, M Taljaard, et al. Electrical versus pharmacological cardioversion for emergency department patients with acute atrial fibrillation (RAFF2): a partial factorial randomised trial Lancet, 395 (2020), pp. 339–349 EZ Proxy link

Papers on managing acute AF have been popping up a bit recently. This one shows that the strategy of procainamide infusion followed by shock was equivalent to shock only strategy (≥200J for the shock). It also showed that pad position (secondary analysis and also randomised for those who got shock) didn’t make a difference.

My interpretation of the study results. Conversion to sinus rhythm was not significant.

Not sure that procainamide infusion is used in our hospitals very much but shock only seems to do the job.

No mention of the recent NEJM study which showed that doing nothing was similar at 48 hours to doing something there and then…

Pluymaekers NA, Dudink EA, Luermans JG, Meeder JG, Lenderink T, Widdershoven J, Bucx JJ, Rienstra M, Kamp O, Van Opstal JM, Alings M. Early or delayed cardioversion in recent-onset atrial fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1499–508.

So leave then shock? – what do you think? 

Need a study into long term outcomes for rate v rhythm control after acute AF

Abstract

Background

Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common arrythmia treated in the emergency department. Our primary aim was to compare conversion to sinus rhythm between pharmacological cardioversion followed by electrical cardioversion (drug–shock), and electrical cardioversion alone (shock-only). Our secondary aim was to compare the effectiveness of two pad positions for electrical cardioversion.

Methods

We did a partial factorial trial of two protocols for patients with acute atrial fibrillation at 11 academic hospital emergency departments in Canada. We enrolled adult patients with acute atrial fibrillation. Protocol 1 was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled comparison of attempted pharmacological cardioversion with intravenous procainamide (15 mg/kg over 30 min) followed by electrical cardioversion if necessary (up to three shocks, each of ≥200 J), and placebo infusion followed by electrical cardioversion. For patients having electrical cardioversion, we used Protocol 2, a randomised, open-label, nested comparison of anteroposterior versus anterolateral pad positions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by study site) for Protocol 1 by on-site research personnel using an online electronic data capture system. Randomisation for Protocol 2 occurred 30 min after drug infusion for patients who had not converted and was stratified by site and Protocol 1 allocation. Patients and all research and emergency department staff were masked to treatment allocation for Protocol 1. The primary outcome was conversion to normal sinus rhythm for at least 30 min at any time after randomisation and up to a point immediately after three shocks. Protocol 1 was analysed by intention to treat and Protocol 2 excluded patients who did not receive electrical cardioversion. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01891058.

Findings

Between July 18, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, we enrolled 396 patients, and none were lost to follow-up. In the drug–shock group (n=204), conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 196 (96%) patients and in the shock-only group (n=192), conversion occurred in 176 (92%) patients (absolute difference 4%; 95% CI 0–9; p=0·07). The proportion of patients discharged home was 97% (n=198) versus 95% (n=183; p=0·60). 106 (52%) patients in the drug–shock group converted after drug infusion only. No patients had serious adverse events in follow-up. The different pad positions in Protocol 2 (n=244), had similar conversions to sinus rhythm (119 [94%] of 127 in anterolateral group vs 108 [92%] of 117 in anteroposterior group; p=0·68).

Interpretation

Both the drug–shock and shock-only strategies were highly effective, rapid, and safe in restoring sinus rhythm for patients in the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation, avoiding the need for return to hospital. The drug infusion worked for about half of patients and avoided the resource intensive procedural sedation required for electrical cardioversion. We also found no significant difference between the anterolateral and anteroposterior pad positions for electrical cardioversion. Immediate rhythm control for patients in the emergency department with acute atrial fibrillation leads to excellent outcomes.

Funding

Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

This entry was posted in Hot off the press, Journal Club by Rory. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.