Comparison of High Versus Escalating Shocks in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02923414|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : October 4, 2016
Last Update Posted : March 22, 2019
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.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Atrial Fibrillation||Device: Standard escalating shocks Device: High energy shock protocol||Not Applicable|
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.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||276 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Official Title:||The Efficiency and Safety of a High Energy Shock Protocol (360-360-360 J) Versus a Standard Escalating Energy Shock Protocol (125-150-200 J) in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation|
|Actual Study Start Date :||September 28, 2016|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||March 8, 2019|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||March 8, 2019|
Active Comparator: 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
Device: Standard escalating shocks
125 J, 150 J, 200 J
Other Name: LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA
Active Comparator: 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
Device: High energy shock protocol
360 J, 360 J, 360 J.
Other Name: LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA
- Efficacy: Successful cardioversion [ Time Frame: One minute following cardioversion ]Successful cardioversion is defined as the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm one minute after cardioversion or cardioversion attempt (to a maximum of the 3 shocks in the protocol).
- Efficacy: First shock success [ Time Frame: Following first cardioversion attempt ]Successful cardioversion following the first cardioversion attempt (125 J versus 360 J).
- Safety: Arrhythmic events and ECG-changes following cardioversion [ Time Frame: Within four hours following cardioversion (until discharge) ]Any post-cardioversion arrhythmias will be recorded using ECG-holtering four hours post cardioversion. Further ECG changes will be measured (sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular delay, ventricular tachyarrhythmia or ventricular premature complexes, ST-segment deviations and recurrence of AF).
- Safety: Skin-discomfort, skin burns or itching [ Time Frame: Two hours after cardioversion ]Patients self-assessment of skin discomfort and objective measurement of skin burns or itching.
- Safety: Troponin I level changes following cardioversion [ Time Frame: Four hours after cardioversion ]To evaluate changes in high sensitive cardiac troponin I levels between a baseline measurement before cardioversion and the level four hours following cardioversion.
- Safety: Echocardiographic evaluation following cardioversion [ Time Frame: Two hours after cardioversion ]Comparing a baseline echocardiographic evaluation with an evaluation performed two after cardioversion, e.g. left ventricular function using standard echocardiographic measurements.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02923414
|Randers Regional Hospital|
|Randers, Denmark, 8930|
|Study Director:||Bo Løfgren, MD, PhD||Randers Regional Hospital|
|Principal Investigator:||Anders S Schmidt, MB||Randers Regional Hospital|