Aims A relevant number of patients presenting for electrical cardioversion carry a pacemaker (PM) or ICD. Case reports suggest a potential hazard of external cardioversion/defibrillation. The incidence of shock related device complications is unknown. No guidelines or recommendations by international medical societies for a cardioversion protocol of cardiovas- cular implantable electronic device (CIED) patients exist. We conducted a nationwide survey to gather real-world clinical data on the current clinical approach towards these patients during electrical cardioversion and to estimate the incidence of shock-related complications. Methods and results Ninety hospitals with > 380 ECV in 2014 were identified from mandatory hospital quality reports and 60 were randomly selected. All centers were provided with a standardized questionnaire on the general proceedings and complications during electrical cardioversion of pacemaker, ICD and CRT patients (CIED patients). Thirty-two centers (53%) participated in the survey. In total, 16,554 ECV were reported (534 ± 314 per center). Biphasic cardioversion with a first shock energy of ≥ 150 J via adhesive patches in antero-posterior orientation was preferred by most centers (78%). Eleven percent (n = 1809) of pts were reported to carry a PM/ICD. The ECV protocol was heterogeneous among centers. Complications associated with electrical cardioversion were reported
Zeitschrift für Kardiologie – Springer Journals
Published: Nov 18, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud