Transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of rectilinear biphasic versus damped sine wave monophasic shocks.

BACKGROUND Clinical studies have shown that biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a rectilinear biphasic waveform with a standard damped sine wave monophasic waveform for the transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, patients undergoing transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation were randomized to receive either damped sine wave monophasic or rectilinear biphasic shocks. Patients randomized to the monophasic protocol (n=77) received sequential shocks of 100, 200, 300, and 360 J. Patients randomized to the biphasic protocol (n=88) received sequential shocks of 70, 120, 150, and 170 J. First-shock efficacy with the 70-J biphasic waveform (60 of 88 patients, 68%) was significantly greater than that with the 100-J monophasic waveform (16 of 77 patients, 21%, P<0.0001), and it was achieved with 50% less delivered current (11+/-1 versus 22+/-4 A, P<0.0001). Similarly, the cumulative efficacy with the biphasic waveform (83 of 88 patients, 94%) was significantly greater than that with the monophasic waveform (61 of 77 patients, 79%; P=0.005). The following 3 variables were independently associated with successful cardioversion: use of a biphasic waveform (relative risk, 4.2; 95% confidence intervals, 1.3 to 13.9; P=0.02), transthoracic impedance (relative risk, 0.64 per 10-Omega increase in impedance; 95% confidence intervals, 0.46 to 0.90; P=0.005), and duration of atrial fibrillation (relative risk, 0.97 per 30 days of atrial fibrillation; 95% confidence intervals, 0.96 to 0.99; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS For transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, rectilinear biphasic shocks have greater efficacy (and require less energy) than damped sine wave monophasic shocks.