Cargando…

Electric Cardioversion vs. Pharmacological with or without Electric Cardioversion for Stable New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is no clear consensus on the preference for pharmacological cardioversion (PC) in comparison to electric cardioversion (EC) for hemodynamically stable new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: A systematic review and meta-an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Prasai, Paritosh, Shrestha, Dhan Bahadur, Saad, Eltaib, Trongtorsak, Angkawipa, Adhikari, Aarya, Gaire, Suman, Oli, Prakash Raj, Shtembari, Jurgen, Adhikari, Pabitra, Sedhai, Yub Raj, Akbar, Muhammad Sikander, Elgendy, Islam Y., Shantha, Ghanshyam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9918032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36769812
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031165
Descripción
Sumario:Background: There is no clear consensus on the preference for pharmacological cardioversion (PC) in comparison to electric cardioversion (EC) for hemodynamically stable new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess PC (whether being followed by EC or not) vs. EC in achieving cardioversion for hemodynamically stable NOAF patients. PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched to include relevant studies until 7 March 2022. The primary outcome was the successful restoration of sinus rhythm, and secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) revisits with atrial fibrillation (AF), hospital readmission rate, length of hospital stay, and cardioversion-associated adverse events. Results: A total of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study were included. There was no difference in the rates of successful restoration to sinus rhythm (88.66% vs. 85.25%; OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.35–3.71; n = 868). There was no statistical difference across the two groups for ED revisits with AF, readmission rates, length of hospital stay, and cardioversion-associated adverse effects, with the exception of hypotension, whose incidence was lower in the EC group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04–0.27: n = 727). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference in successful restoration of sinus rhythm with either modality among patients with hemodynamically stable NOAF.