Int J Arrhythm.  2023 Sep;24(3):17. 10.1186/s42444-023-00099-x.

Analysis of clinical risk factors of failed electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

Affiliations
  • 1Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
  • 2Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 3Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi‑Do, Korea
  • 4Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 5Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 6Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Busan National University Hospital, Busan University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
  • 7Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
  • 8Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea
  • 9Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, 81 Irwon‑Ro Gangnam‑Gu, Seoul 06351, Korea

Abstract

Background
Although rhythm control could be the best for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), some patients fail to achieve sinus rhythm (SR). This study aimed to identify clinical risk factors of failed electrical cardioversion (ECV).
Methods
A total of 248 patients who received ECV for persistent AF or atrial flutter (AFL) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 maintained SR for > 1 year, group 2 maintained SR ≤ 1 year after ECV, and group 3 failed ECV. SR maintenance was assessed using regular electrocardiography or Holter monitoring.
Results
Patients were divided into group 1 (73, 29%), group 2 (146, 59%), and group 3 (29, 12%). The mean age of patients was 60 ± 10 years, and 197 (79%) were male. Age, sex, and baseline characteristics were similar among groups. However, increased cardiac size, digoxin use, heart failure (HF), and decreased left ventricular ejection frac‑ tion (LVEF) were more common in group 3. Univariate analysis of clinical risk factors for failed ECV was increased cardiac size [hazard ratio (HR) 2.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–4.34, p = 0.030)], digoxin use [HR 2.66 (95% CI, 1.15–6.14), p = 0.027], HF [HR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.32–5.09), p = 0.005], LVEF < 40% [HR 3.45 (95% CI, 1.00–11.85), p = 0.038], and decreased LVEF [HR 2.49 (95% CI, 1.18–5.25), p = 0.012]. Among them, HF showed clinical significance only by multivariate analysis [HR 3.01 (95% CI, 1.13–7.99), p = 0.027].
Conclusions
Increased cardiac size, digoxin use, HF, LVEF < 40%, and decreased LVEF were related to failed ECV for persistent AF or AFL. Among these, HF was the most important risk factor. Further multi-center studies including greater number of participants are planned.

Keyword

Atrial fibrillation; Atrial flutter; Electrical cardioversion
Full Text Links
  • IJA
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr