Electrical or Chemical-First Cardioversion of A-fib?

Written by Clay Smith

Spoon Feed
For new onset atrial fibrillation (a-fib), an electrical-first approach reduced ED length of stay compared to a chemical-first approach.

Why does this matter?
With RACE 7, one might ask if there is need to cardiovert anyone with new onset a-fib or rather take a wait-and-see approach, as most spontaneously convert to NSR. But, many patients are profoundly symptomatic with a-fib, and restoration of NSR is a reasonable goal. As such, is it faster to chemically or electrically provide rhythm control?

Get into the rhythm
This was a multi-center RCT comparing chemical first to electrical first management of new onset a-fib. In all, 84 patients were randomized. The electrical first group was discharged home in under 4 hours 67% of the time, compared to the chemical first (procainamide) group at 32%. Procainamide converted 54% (22 of 41), and all failures crossed over and were then successfully converted electrically. Electrical cardioversion converted 88% (38 of 43), with 4 of the 5 failures crossing over and converting with procainamide. Adverse events were the same in each group, as were 3 and 30-day outcomes.

Source
A Multicenter Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Chemical-first or Electrical-first Cardioversion Strategy for Patients With Uncomplicated Acute Atrial Fibrillation. Acad Emerg Med. 2019 Aug 19. doi: 10.1111/acem.13669. [Epub ahead of print]

Open in Read by QxMD

Reviewed by Thomas Davis

Member Login
Welcome, (First Name)!

Forgot? Show
Log In
Enter Member Area
My Profile Sign up to get full access. Log Out