Cited by 45Cardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

A comparison of 50-J versus 100-J shocks for direct-current cardioversion of atrial flutter

Pinski, Sergio L., Sgarbossa, Elena B., Ching, Elizabeth, Trohman, Richard G.·1999·American Heart Journal

Abstract

Background Direct-current cardioversion remains the gold standard for restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial flutter. Although an initial energy of 50 J is recommended, the optimal energy settings have not been evaluated in a large series of contemporary patients.Methods We compared the outcome of cardioversion with 50 J versus 100 J in 330 consecutive patients with atrial flutter. Initial energy was based on attending physician preference. One hundred sixty patients received 50 J and 170 patients received 100 J.Results Patients in both groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, weight, body mass index, duration of the arrhythmia, postoperative status, presence and type of structural heart disease, or use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients in the 100-J group had more first shock conversion (85% vs 70%; P =. 001), fewer total shocks (1.2 +/- 0.5 vs 1.4 +/- 0.7; P =.001), and less induction of atrial fibrillation (2% vs 11%; P =.002). There were no significant differences in overall restoration of sinus rhythm, cumulative energy delivered, anesthetic dose, and procedure room time. On multivariate analysis, delivery of 100 J was the strongest predictor of first shock success (odds ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 2.13 to 3.16; P <.001).Conclusion An initial energy of 100 J is more efficient for restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial flutter.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-8703(99)70489-8

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinski, S. L., Sgarbossa, E. B., Ching, E., & Trohman, R. G.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic (US)
Venue
American Heart Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-03
Volume
137
Issue
3
Pages
439-442
ISSN
0002-8703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021378492
Cited by
45
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
atrial flutter, electrical cardioversion, shock energy, sinus rhythm restoration, antiarrhythmic drugs, procedural efficiency
MeSH terms
Aged, Analysis of Variance, Anti-Arrhythmia Agents, Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, Cardiomyopathy, Dilated, Coronary Disease, Electric Countershock, Electricity, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Methohexital, Middle Aged, Myocardial Contraction, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Body Mass Index, Multivariate Analysis, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Anesthetics, Intravenous

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