Cited by 34Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Relapse and mortality following cardioversion of new-onset vs. recurrent atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in the elderly

Elesber, Ahmad A., Rosales, Ana Gabriela, Herges, Regina M., Shen, Win-Kuang, Moon, Brenda S., Malouf, Joseph F., Ammash, Naser M., Somers, Virend +4 more·2006·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: Trials of rate control vs. rhythm control for atrial fibrillation or flutter included few patients with new-onset arrhythmia. Our objective was to assess the relapse rate and the effect of the relapse of new-onset atrial arrhythmias on mortality after direct-current cardioversion (DCCV). METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of 351 patients with atrial fibrillation (new onset in 179) and 126 patients with atrial flutter (new onset in 78) was followed-up after DCCV. Cox proportional hazard models were used. Median age was 74.6 years. Mean follow-up for relapse was 7.7 months; for death, 29.4 months. Patients with new-onset atrial flutter [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1] were more likely to maintain sinus rhythm than the patients with recurrent atrial flutter (adjusted HR = 2.5, P < 0.01), new-onset atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR = 2.4, P < 0.01), or recurrent atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR = 2.7, P < 0.01). Patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation were as likely to have relapses as patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation or flutter. Relapse of atrial arrhythmia after DCCV was associated with increased mortality (adjusted HR= 3.1, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: DCCV is more successful in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with new-onset atrial flutter than in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Relapse of atrial arrhythmia after cardioversion is associated with increased mortality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi753

Cites

20 of 20 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
Elesber, A. A., Rosales, A. G., Herges, R. M., Shen, W.-K., Moon, B. S., Malouf, J. F., Ammash, N. M., Somers, V., Hodge, D. O., Gersh, B. J., Hammill, S. C., & Friedman, P. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2006-02-02
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
854-860
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2144647894
Cited by
34
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
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 electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, electrical cardioversion, arrhythmia recurrence, mortality, sinus rhythm maintenance, elderly patients
MeSH terms
Aged, Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, Electric Countershock, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Recurrence, Multivariate Analysis, Survival Analysis

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