SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
External versus internal cardioversion for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of patients with an electrical storm or clustered ventricular arrhythmias: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC-endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, Heart Rhythm Society, and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document: appropriate management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often require rhythm control strategy for amelioration of symptoms. It is unclear if there is any difference between external cardioversion (ECV) and internal cardioversion (ICV) for successful conversion of AF to normal sinus rhythm.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating success of cardioversion using ECV versus ICV.
resultsIn the pooled analysis of 5 RCTS, there was no difference in success of cardioversion using ECV versus ICV (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.24-11.83, p = 0.6). In the subgroup analysis, there was no difference between ECV and direct electrode ICV (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-1.83, p = 0.24). However, ECV was significantly better compared with ICV using ICD (OR 11.97, 95% CI 1.87-76.73, p = 0.009).
conclusionsThere was no difference between ECV versus ICV in effectiveness for termination of AF. Larger well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.