Cited by 16Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

A South Australian registry of biphasic cardioversions of atrial arrhythmias: efficacy and predictors of success

Open access
Wittwer, Melanie R., Rajendran, Sharmalar, Kealley, Jill, Arstall, Margaret A.·2015·Heart Lung and Circulation

Abstract

Background Restoration of sinus rhythm by biphasic cardioversion is an established strategy for patients in atrial arrhythmias. This study aimed to investigate the real-life practice of cardioversions throughout a local hospital to determine frequency and predictors of success and use of high energy (> 200 joules).Methods Prospective analysis of consecutive biphasic cardioversions from 2009-2013. Patient demographics, medical history and cardioversion data were collected.Results 484 cardioversions from 379 patients were included in the final analysis. The majority (73%) of cardioversions were immediately successful after a single shock; overall success was 88% (1-5 shocks). Exploratory analyses revealed that single-shock success was significantly associated with lighter weight (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.0-1.4, p<0.05). If a second shock was required, energy escalation was significantly associated with success (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.43-6.77, p<0.05). Increasing weight was the strongest predictor of receiving high energy (10kg increase OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.13-1.81, p<0.05).Conclusions This prospective analysis reflects the real-life heterogeneous practice of biphasic cardioversions of atrial arrhythmias throughout a local hospital. These findings highlight the importance of first shock energy selection with careful consideration of patient weight. We emphasise the recommendation to escalate energy, highlighting the need for high-energy defibrillators in 'hard-to-cardiovert' patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.hlc.2014.10.004

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 16

Authors
Wittwer, M. R., Rajendran, S., Kealley, J., & Arstall, M. A.
Affiliations
Lyell McEwin Hospital (AU)
Venue
Heart Lung and Circulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
342-347
ISSN
1443-9506 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051158514
Cited by
16
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heart Lung and Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
atrial arrhythmias, sinus rhythm restoration, patient weight
MeSH terms
Aged, Atrial Fibrillation, Australia, Electric Countershock, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Registries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review