Atrial FibrillationNCT02923414
Comparison of High Versus Escalating Shocks in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation
A study testing Standard escalating shocks and High energy shock protocol in people with Atrial Fibrillation, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder. For patients suffering atrial fibrillation direct current cardioversion is performed to reduce patients symptoms and prevent disease progression. The optimal energy selection for biphasic cardioversion is unknown. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Atrial Fibrillation
- What is being tested?
- Standard escalating shocks and High energy shock protocol
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 276 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- 28 Sep 2016to 8 Mar 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- >18 years of age, scheduled for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Patients with atrial fibrillation for ≤48 hours may be cardioverted immediately. Patients with atrial fibrillation for >48 hours will be required to have a documented weekly international normalized ratio (INR) ≥2.0 (including within 48 hours of cardioversion) or treatment with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant for three weeks or longer. Alternatively, a transoesophageal echocardiogram documenting absence of intracardiac thrombi is accepted and cardioversion can be performed on treatment with low molecular weight heparin.
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy, haemodynamically unstable atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias than atrial fibrillation, untreated hyperthyroidism
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Efficiency and Safety of a High Energy Shock Protocol (360-360-360 J) Versus a Standard Escalating Energy Shock Protocol (125-150-200 J) in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation
Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder. For patients suffering atrial fibrillation direct current cardioversion is performed to reduce patients symptoms and prevent disease progression. The optimal energy selection for biphasic cardioversion is unknown.
We aim to investigate the efficiency and safety of a high energy shock protocol (360 J) versus a standard escalating shock protocol (125-150-200 J) in cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.
Read the detailed description
The optimal energy selection for biphasic direct current (DC) cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is unknown. The energy delivered should be sufficient to achieve prompt cardioversion but without the risk of inducing any potential injury e.g. skin burns, myocardial stunning or post-cardioversion arrhythmias. The use of an escalating protocol, with a low energy initial shock, has been considered conventional practice, originally to avoid post cardioversion arrhythmias when using monophasic shocks.(1) This practice has been directly transferred to biphasic cardioversion. The European Society of Cardiology 2016 guidelines (2) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2014 guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation (3) do not recommend any specific energy settings, whereas the European Resuscitation Council 2010 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (4) recommend a starting energy level of 120-200 J with subsequent escalating energy setting.
Previously, a non-escalating protocol (200 J) (5) has been found to have a significantly higher first shock success resulting in fewer shock deliveries without compromising safety compared with a low energy escalating shock protocol (100-150-200 J). Further, a study found fewer arrhythmic complications with increasing energy suggesting an 'upper limit of vulnerability'. It is well-established that biphasic shocks induce fewer post-shock arrhythmias (6), skin burns (7) and shorter periods of myocardial stunning compared with monophasic shocks.(8) Importantly, no correlation between increasing biphasic energy delivery and any complications was found in these studies. Nonetheless, the efficiency and safety of a high energy shock (360 J) biphasic protocol compared with a conventional low energy escalating protocol is unknown. Accordingly, this study aims to compare the efficiency and safety of a high energy protocol (360-360-360 J) versus a standard escalating protocol (125-150-200 J). We hypothesise that a high energy cardioversion protocol is more effective compared to standard escalating energy protocol, without compromising safety.
- Conditions
- Atrial Fibrillation
- Being tested
- Standard escalating shocks, High energy shock protocol
- Keywords
- Cardioversion
- Medical subject headings
- Atrial Fibrillation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Standard escalating shocksDevice
Also called LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA
125 J, 150 J, 200 J
High energy shock protocolDevice
Also called LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA
360 J, 360 J, 360 J.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Standard escalating shocks | Active comparator | Patients will be randomized to a standard escalating shock protocol using the energy settings: 125, 150, 200 J. All cardioversion attempts will be performed using LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA Receives: Device: Standard escalating shocks |
| High energy shocks | Active comparator | Patients will be randomized to a high energy shock protocol using the energy settings: 360, 360, 360 J. All cardioversion attempts will be performed using LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA Receives: Device: High energy shock protocol |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Efficacy: Successful cardioversion
Successful cardioversion is defined as the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm one minute after cardioversion or cardioversion attempt (to a maximum of the 3 shocks in the protocol).
Measured: One minute following cardioversion
Secondary outcomes (5)
Efficacy: First shock success
Successful cardioversion following the first cardioversion attempt (125 J versus 360 J).
Measured: Following first cardioversion attempt
Safety: Arrhythmic events and ECG-changes following cardioversion
Any post-cardioversion arrhythmias will be recorded using ECG-holtering four hours post cardioversion. Further ECG changes will be measured (sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular delay, ventricular tachyarrhythmia or ventricular premature complexes, ST-segment deviations and recurrence of AF).
Measured: Within four hours following cardioversion (until discharge)
Safety: Skin-discomfort, skin burns or itching
Patients self-assessment of skin discomfort and objective measurement of skin burns or itching.
Measured: Two hours after cardioversion
Safety: Troponin I level changes following cardioversion
To evaluate changes in high sensitive cardiac troponin I levels between a baseline measurement before cardioversion and the level four hours following cardioversion.
Measured: Four hours after cardioversion
Safety: Echocardiographic evaluation following cardioversion
Comparing a baseline echocardiographic evaluation with an evaluation performed two after cardioversion, e.g. left ventricular function using standard echocardiographic measurements.
Measured: Two hours after cardioversion
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Study start28 Sep 2016
- Primary completion8 Mar 2019
- Study completion8 Mar 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Atrial FibrillationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of AarhusThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 276 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Aarhus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Randers Regional Hospital
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Bo Løfgren, MD, PhD, Study director, Randers Regional HospitalAnders S Schmidt, MB, Principal investigator, Randers Regional Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02923414
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 52187
- Status last verified
- Apr 2018
- First submitted
- 3 Oct 2016
- Last updated
- 22 Mar 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Lown B. Electrical reversion of cardiac arrhythmias. Br Heart J. 1967 Jul;29(4):469-89. doi: 10.1136/hrt.29.4.469. No abstract available.
PubMed 6029120Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, Castella M, Diener HC, Heidbuchel H, Hendriks J, Hindricks G, Manolis AS, Oldgren J, Popescu BA, Schotten U, Van Putte B, Vardas P; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37(38):2893-2962. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210. Epub 2016 Aug 27. No abstract available.
PubMed 27567408January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, Conti JB, Ellinor PT, Ezekowitz MD, Field ME, Murray KT, Sacco RL, Stevenson WG, Tchou PJ, Tracy CM, Yancy CW; ACC/AHA Task Force Members. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014 Dec 2;130(23):e199-267. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000041. Epub 2014 Mar 28. No abstract available.
PubMed 24682347Deakin CD, Nolan JP, Sunde K, Koster RW. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 3. Electrical therapies: automated external defibrillators, defibrillation, cardioversion and pacing. Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1293-304. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.008. No abstract available.
PubMed 20956050Glover BM, Walsh SJ, McCann CJ, Moore MJ, Manoharan G, Dalzell GW, McAllister A, McClements B, McEneaney DJ, Trouton TG, Mathew TP, Adgey AA. Biphasic energy selection for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. The BEST AF Trial. Heart. 2008 Jul;94(7):884-7. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.120782. Epub 2007 Jun 25.
PubMed 17591649Ambler JJ, Deakin CD. A randomized controlled trial of efficacy and ST change following use of the Welch-Allyn MRL PIC biphasic waveform versus damped sine monophasic waveform for external DC cardioversion. Resuscitation. 2006 Nov;71(2):146-51. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.03.017. Epub 2006 Sep 20.
PubMed 16987583Page RL, Kerber RE, Russell JK, Trouton T, Waktare J, Gallik D, Olgin JE, Ricard P, Dalzell GW, Reddy R, Lazzara R, Lee K, Carlson M, Halperin B, Bardy GH; BiCard Investigators. Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation: the results of an international randomized, double-blind multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jun 19;39(12):1956-63. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)01898-3.
PubMed 12084594Deakin CD, Ambler JJ. Post-shock myocardial stunning: a prospective randomised double-blind comparison of monophasic and biphasic waveforms. Resuscitation. 2006 Mar;68(3):329-33. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.07.021. Epub 2005 Dec 27.
PubMed 16378672
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Mar 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Efficiency and Safety of a High Energy Shock Protocol (360-360-360 J) Versus a Standard Escalating Energy Shock Protocol (125-150-200 J) in Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02923414
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 52187
- Conditions
- Atrial Fibrillation
- Keywords
- Cardioversion
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 276 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AarhusUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Randers Regional Hospital
- Study start
- 28 Sep 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 8 Mar 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 8 Mar 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart rhythm disorder. For patients suffering atrial fibrillation direct current cardioversion is performed to reduce patients symptoms and prevent disease progression. The optimal energy selection for biphasic cardioversion is unknown.
We aim to investigate the efficiency and safety of a high energy shock protocol (360 J) versus a standard escalating shock protocol (125-150-200 J) in cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.
Detailed description
The optimal energy selection for biphasic direct current (DC) cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is unknown. The energy delivered should be sufficient to achieve prompt cardioversion but without the risk of inducing any potential injury e.g. skin burns, myocardial stunning or post-cardioversion arrhythmias. The use of an escalating protocol, with a low energy initial shock, has been considered conventional practice, originally to avoid post cardioversion arrhythmias when using monophasic shocks.(1) This practice has been directly transferred to biphasic cardioversion. The European Society of Cardiology 2016 guidelines (2) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology 2014 guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation (3) do not recommend any specific energy settings, whereas the European Resuscitation Council 2010 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (4) recommend a starting energy level of 120-200 J with subsequent escalating energy setting.
Previously, a non-escalating protocol (200 J) (5) has been found to have a significantly higher first shock success resulting in fewer shock deliveries without compromising safety compared with a low energy escalating shock protocol (100-150-200 J). Further, a study found fewer arrhythmic complications with increasing energy suggesting an 'upper limit of vulnerability'. It is well-established that biphasic shocks induce fewer post-shock arrhythmias (6), skin burns (7) and shorter periods of myocardial stunning compared with monophasic shocks.(8) Importantly, no correlation between increasing biphasic energy delivery and any complications was found in these studies. Nonetheless, the efficiency and safety of a high energy shock (360 J) biphasic protocol compared with a conventional low energy escalating protocol is unknown. Accordingly, this study aims to compare the efficiency and safety of a high energy protocol (360-360-360 J) versus a standard escalating protocol (125-150-200 J). We hypothesise that a high energy cardioversion protocol is more effective compared to standard escalating energy protocol, without compromising safety.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Standard escalating shocks | Active comparator | Device: Standard escalating shocksPatients will be randomized to a standard escalating shock protocol using the energy settings: 125, 150, 200 J. All cardioversion attempts will be performed using LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA |
| High energy shocks | Active comparator | Device: High energy shock protocolPatients will be randomized to a high energy shock protocol using the energy settings: 360, 360, 360 J. All cardioversion attempts will be performed using LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- >18 years of age, scheduled for cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Patients with atrial fibrillation for ≤48 hours may be cardioverted immediately. Patients with atrial fibrillation for >48 hours will be required to have a documented weekly international normalized ratio (INR) ≥2.0 (including within 48 hours of cardioversion) or treatment with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant for three weeks or longer. Alternatively, a transoesophageal echocardiogram documenting absence of intracardiac thrombi is accepted and cardioversion can be performed on treatment with low molecular weight heparin.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Pregnancy, haemodynamically unstable atrial fibrillation, other arrhythmias than atrial fibrillation, untreated hyperthyroidism
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Standard escalating shocksAlso: LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA125 J, 150 J, 200 J | Device | Standard escalating shocks |
| High energy shock protocolAlso: LIFEPAK 20, Physio-Control Inc., Redmond, WA, USA360 J, 360 J, 360 J. | Device | High energy shocks |
Primary outcome
Efficacy: Successful cardioversion
Time frame: One minute following cardioversion
Successful cardioversion is defined as the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm one minute after cardioversion or cardioversion attempt (to a maximum of the 3 shocks in the protocol).
5 secondary outcomes
Efficacy: First shock success
Time frame: Following first cardioversion attempt
Safety: Arrhythmic events and ECG-changes following cardioversion
Time frame: Within four hours following cardioversion (until discharge)
Safety: Skin-discomfort, skin burns or itching
Time frame: Two hours after cardioversion
Safety: Troponin I level changes following cardioversion
Time frame: Four hours after cardioversion
Safety: Echocardiographic evaluation following cardioversion
Time frame: Two hours after cardioversion
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Mar 2019.
- Background: PubMed 6029120Lown B. Electrical reversion of cardiac arrhythmias. Br Heart J. 1967 Jul;29(4):469-89. doi: 10.1136/hrt.29.4.469. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 27567408Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, Castella M, Diener HC, Heidbuchel H, Hendriks J, Hindricks G, Manolis AS, Oldgren J, Popescu BA, Schotten U, Van Putte B, Vardas P; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37(38):2893-2962. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210. Epub 2016 Aug 27. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 24682347January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, Conti JB, Ellinor PT, Ezekowitz MD, Field ME, Murray KT, Sacco RL, Stevenson WG, Tchou PJ, Tracy CM, Yancy CW; ACC/AHA Task Force Members. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014 Dec 2;130(23):e199-267. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000041. Epub 2014 Mar 28. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 20956050Deakin CD, Nolan JP, Sunde K, Koster RW. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010 Section 3. Electrical therapies: automated external defibrillators, defibrillation, cardioversion and pacing. Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1293-304. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.08.008. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 17591649Glover BM, Walsh SJ, McCann CJ, Moore MJ, Manoharan G, Dalzell GW, McAllister A, McClements B, McEneaney DJ, Trouton TG, Mathew TP, Adgey AA. Biphasic energy selection for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. The BEST AF Trial. Heart. 2008 Jul;94(7):884-7. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.120782. Epub 2007 Jun 25.
- Background: PubMed 16987583Ambler JJ, Deakin CD. A randomized controlled trial of efficacy and ST change following use of the Welch-Allyn MRL PIC biphasic waveform versus damped sine monophasic waveform for external DC cardioversion. Resuscitation. 2006 Nov;71(2):146-51. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.03.017. Epub 2006 Sep 20.
- Background: PubMed 12084594Page RL, Kerber RE, Russell JK, Trouton T, Waktare J, Gallik D, Olgin JE, Ricard P, Dalzell GW, Reddy R, Lazzara R, Lee K, Carlson M, Halperin B, Bardy GH; BiCard Investigators. Biphasic versus monophasic shock waveform for conversion of atrial fibrillation: the results of an international randomized, double-blind multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Jun 19;39(12):1956-63. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(02)01898-3.
- Background: PubMed 16378672Deakin CD, Ambler JJ. Post-shock myocardial stunning: a prospective randomised double-blind comparison of monophasic and biphasic waveforms. Resuscitation. 2006 Mar;68(3):329-33. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.07.021. Epub 2005 Dec 27.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruiting
Horizon 360 Protocol for the Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation With the Sphere-360™ Catheter and Affera™ Mapping and Ablation System (Horizon 360)
Paroxysmal AF
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Concomitant Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Pulsed Field Ablation-Asia
Concomitant Procedures, Atrial Fibrillation
Active, not recruiting
CONVERGE Post-Approval Study (PAS)
Chronic Atrial Fibrillation
Recruiting
Early Closure of Left Atrial Appendage for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Stroke Despite Anticoagulation Therapy
Ischemic Stroke, Atrial Fibrillation
RecruitingPhase 2
Safety in Adult Participants With Atrial Fibrillation Who Are Treated With Anticoagulation
Atrial Fibrillation (AF)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Bo Løfgren, MD, PhD study director
Randers Regional Hospital
Anders S Schmidt, MB principal investigator
Randers Regional Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Standard escalating shocks and High energy shock protocol in people with Atrial Fibrillation, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Mar 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Efficacy: Successful cardioversion (time frame: One minute following cardioversion). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02923414, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Mar 2019; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 8 Nov 2026.