{"title":"双相与单相冲击波形对房颤转换的影响。","authors":"Robert W Rho, Richard L Page","doi":"10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) using traditional monophasic shock waveform is unsuccessful in up to 20% of cases, and often requires several shocks of up to 360 J. Based on the success with biphasic shock waveform in converting ventricular fibrillation, it was postulated that biphasic shocks would allow cardioversion with lower energy. In a international multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 203 patients, damped sine wave monophasic shocks were compared with impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic waveform shocks. Patients received up to five shocks: 100 J, 150 J, 200 J, a fourth shock at maximum output for the initial waveform (200 J biphasic, 360 J monophasic) and a final cross-over shock at maximum output of the alternate waveform. For each energy level, the biphasic waveform compared favorably to the monophasic waveform in successful cardioversion (100 J: 60% versus 22%, P < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% versus 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% versus 53%, p < 0.0001). Success with 200 J biphasic was equivalent to 360 J monophasic shock (91% versus 85%, p = 0.29). Patients randomized to biphasic waveform required fewer shocks and lower total energy delivered; in addition, this waveform was associated with less dermal injury and no blistering. Biphasic shocks converted AF present for less than 48 hours with 80% efficacy, but conversion of AF present for more than 48 hours and more than 1 year the success rate was only 63 and 20%, respectively. The results of this study is similar to other investigations comparing biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms for conversion of atrial fibrillation. We recommend starting with biphasic energy of 100 J for atrial fibrillation of less than 48 hours duration, but using higher energies (150 J, 200 J or greater) when AF has been present for longer periods.</p>","PeriodicalId":80888,"journal":{"name":"Cardiac electrophysiology review","volume":"7 3","pages":"290-1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation.\",\"authors\":\"Robert W Rho, Richard L Page\",\"doi\":\"10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) using traditional monophasic shock waveform is unsuccessful in up to 20% of cases, and often requires several shocks of up to 360 J. Based on the success with biphasic shock waveform in converting ventricular fibrillation, it was postulated that biphasic shocks would allow cardioversion with lower energy. In a international multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 203 patients, damped sine wave monophasic shocks were compared with impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic waveform shocks. Patients received up to five shocks: 100 J, 150 J, 200 J, a fourth shock at maximum output for the initial waveform (200 J biphasic, 360 J monophasic) and a final cross-over shock at maximum output of the alternate waveform. For each energy level, the biphasic waveform compared favorably to the monophasic waveform in successful cardioversion (100 J: 60% versus 22%, P < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% versus 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% versus 53%, p < 0.0001). Success with 200 J biphasic was equivalent to 360 J monophasic shock (91% versus 85%, p = 0.29). Patients randomized to biphasic waveform required fewer shocks and lower total energy delivered; in addition, this waveform was associated with less dermal injury and no blistering. Biphasic shocks converted AF present for less than 48 hours with 80% efficacy, but conversion of AF present for more than 48 hours and more than 1 year the success rate was only 63 and 20%, respectively. The results of this study is similar to other investigations comparing biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms for conversion of atrial fibrillation. We recommend starting with biphasic energy of 100 J for atrial fibrillation of less than 48 hours duration, but using higher energies (150 J, 200 J or greater) when AF has been present for longer periods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiac electrophysiology review\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"290-1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiac electrophysiology review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiac electrophysiology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CEPR.0000012398.01150.eb","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35
摘要
采用传统单相休克波形的房颤(AF)复律在高达20%的病例中是不成功的,并且通常需要多次高达360 j的电击。基于双相休克波形在转换心室颤动方面的成功,假设双相电击可以以更低的能量进行复律。在一项包含203名患者的国际多中心、双盲、随机试验中,将阻尼正弦波单相冲击与阻抗补偿截断指数双相波形冲击进行了比较。患者最多接受5次电击:100j、150j、200j,第4次电击的最大输出为初始波形(200j双相,360 J单相),最后一次交叉电击的最大输出为交替波形。对于每一个能量水平,在成功的心律转复中,双相波形优于单相波形(100 J: 60% vs 22%, P < 0.0001;150 J: 77%对44%,p < 0.0001;200j: 90% vs 53%, p < 0.0001)。200 J双相休克的成功率等同于360 J单相休克(91%对85%,p = 0.29)。随机分配到双相波形的患者需要更少的电击和更低的总能量输送;此外,这种波形与较少的皮肤损伤和无水泡有关。双相电击对存在时间小于48小时的房颤的转换率为80%,而存在时间大于48小时和超过1年的房颤转换率分别只有63%和20%。这项研究的结果与其他比较双相和单相激波对房颤转换的研究相似。我们建议对于持续时间少于48小时的房颤,从100 J的双相能量开始,但当房颤持续时间较长时,使用更高的能量(150 J、200 J或更高)。
Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation.
Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) using traditional monophasic shock waveform is unsuccessful in up to 20% of cases, and often requires several shocks of up to 360 J. Based on the success with biphasic shock waveform in converting ventricular fibrillation, it was postulated that biphasic shocks would allow cardioversion with lower energy. In a international multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 203 patients, damped sine wave monophasic shocks were compared with impedance-compensated truncated exponential biphasic waveform shocks. Patients received up to five shocks: 100 J, 150 J, 200 J, a fourth shock at maximum output for the initial waveform (200 J biphasic, 360 J monophasic) and a final cross-over shock at maximum output of the alternate waveform. For each energy level, the biphasic waveform compared favorably to the monophasic waveform in successful cardioversion (100 J: 60% versus 22%, P < 0.0001; 150 J: 77% versus 44%, p < 0.0001; 200 J: 90% versus 53%, p < 0.0001). Success with 200 J biphasic was equivalent to 360 J monophasic shock (91% versus 85%, p = 0.29). Patients randomized to biphasic waveform required fewer shocks and lower total energy delivered; in addition, this waveform was associated with less dermal injury and no blistering. Biphasic shocks converted AF present for less than 48 hours with 80% efficacy, but conversion of AF present for more than 48 hours and more than 1 year the success rate was only 63 and 20%, respectively. The results of this study is similar to other investigations comparing biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms for conversion of atrial fibrillation. We recommend starting with biphasic energy of 100 J for atrial fibrillation of less than 48 hours duration, but using higher energies (150 J, 200 J or greater) when AF has been present for longer periods.