×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Review paper

Breaking habits: safety and efficacy of elective electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in the setting of day hospital

By
Ammar Brkić Orcid logo ,
Ammar Brkić

Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Minela Bećirović ,
Minela Bećirović
Contact Minela Bećirović

Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Emir Bećirović ,
Emir Bećirović

Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Tarik Brkić ,
Tarik Brkić

Clinic of Invasive Cardiology, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Esad Brkić ,
Esad Brkić

Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Denis Mršić ,
Denis Mršić

Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Amir Bećirović ,
Amir Bećirović

School of Medicine, University of Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Amila Jašarević ,
Amila Jašarević

Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Emir Softić ,
Emir Softić

Department of Emergency Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Zenica , Zenica , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Alma Mujić Ibralić
Alma Mujić Ibralić

Health centre Živinice , Živinice , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Aim
To examine safety and efficiency of electrocardioversion (EC) in elective treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in
the setting of Day Hospital by determining success rate, frequency of adverse events and possible cost benefit compared to admitting a patient into hospital.
Methods
This prospective observational cohort study was performed in Day Hospital and in Intensive Care Department of Internal
Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla from January 2019 to December 2022 and included 98 patients with a persistent form of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter. The patients who were divided in two groups, 56 hospitalized and 42 patients accessed in Day Hospital. In all patients, medical history, physical examination, electrocardiogram (ECG) and transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) evaluation was performed in addition to laboratory findings. Electrocardioversion was performed with a monophasic General Electric defibrillator in anterolateral electrode position with up to three repetitive shocks.
Results
In hospital setting group overall succes rate of electrocardioversion was 85%, with average 2.1 EC attemps, there was with one fatal outcome due to stroke, one case of ventricular fibrillation (VF) due to human error, and 6 minor adverse events; with average cost of was 1408.70 KM (720.23 €) per patient. In Day Hospital setting succes rate was 88%, with average 2 EC attempts, no major adverse events, 8 minor adverse events; and average cost was of 127.23 KM (65.05 €) per patient.
Conclusion
Performing elective electrocardioversion in Day Hospital setting is as safe as admitting patients into hospital but substantially more cost effective.

References

1.
Dong XJ, Wang BB, Hou FF, Jiao Y, Li HW, Lv SP, et al. Global burden of atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter and its attributable risk factors from 1990 to 2019. Europace. 2023;25:793–803.
2.
Elliott AD, Middeldorp ME, Gelder IC, Albert CM, Sanders P. Epidemiology and modifiable risk factors for atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2023;20:404–17.
3.
Stewart S, Hart CL, Hole DJ, McMurray JJ. A population-based study of the long-term risks associated with atrial fibrillation: 20-year follow-up of the Renfrew/Paisley study. Am J Med. 2002;113:359–64.
4.
Nesheiwat Z, Goyal A, Fibrillation JMA. Treasure Island. 2023.
5.
Stempfel S, Aeschbacher S, Blum S, Meyre P, Gugganig R, Beer JH, et al. Symptoms and quality of life in patients with coexistent atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2020;29(100556).
6.
Wynn GJ, Todd DM, Webber M, Bonnett L, McShane J, Kirchhof P, et al. The European Heart Rhythm Association symptom classification for atrial fibrillation: validation and improvement through a simple modification. Europace. 2014;16:965–72.
7.
M RZ, A G, Flutter MCVA. Treasure Island. 2022.
8.
Freedman B, Hindricks G, Banerjee A, Baranchuk A, Ching CK, Du X, et al. Stepinska J.
9.
Tahirović E, Sijerčić A, Granov N, Kulić M, Latinović D, Naser N. Smartphone-based screening for atrial fibrillation - Experiences from Bosnia and Hercegovina. J Atr Fibrillation. 2022;15(4).
10.
Thomas D, Eckardt L, Estner HL, Kuniss M, Meyer C, Neuberger HR, et al. Typical atrial flutter: Diagnosis and therapy. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2016;271:46–56.
11.
Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, Crijns HJ, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation. In: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. 2011.
12.
Mitrega K, Lip GYH, Sredniawa B, Sokal A, Streb W, Przyludzki K. Predicting Silent Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly: A Report from the NOMED-AF cross-sectional study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(2321).
13.
Brundel BJJM, Ai X, Hills MT, Kuipers MF, Lip GYH, Groot NMS. Atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2(16017).
14.
Gutierrez C, Blanchard DG. Diagnosis and treatment of atrial fibrillation. Am Fam Physician. 2016;94:442–52.
15.
Brandes A, Crijns HJGM, Rienstra M, Kirchhof P, Grove EL, Pedersen KB, et al. Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter revisited: current evidence and practical guidance for a common procedure. Europace. 2020;22:1149–61.
16.
Andrade JG, Mitchell LB. Periprocedural anticoagulation for cardioversion of acute onset atrial fibrillation and flutter: evidence base for current guidelines. Can J Cardiol. 2019;35:1301–10.
17.
Bushoven P, Linzbach S, Vamos M, Hohnloser SH. Optimal anticoagulation strategy for cardioversion in atrial fibrillation. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2015;4:44–6.
18.
Ringborg A, Nieuwlaat R, Lindgren P, Jonsson B, Fidan D, Maggioni A, et al. Costs of atrial fibrillation in five European countries: results from the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation. EP Europace. 2008;10:403–11.
19.
Westerman S, Wenger N. Gender Differences in Atrial Fibrillation: A Review of Epidemiology, Management, and Outcomes. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2019;15:136–44.
20.
Volgman AS, Benjamin EJ, Curtis AB, Fang MC, Lindley KJ, Naccarelli GV, et al. American College of Cardiology Committee on Cardiovascular Disease in Women. Women and atrial fibrillation J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;32:2793–807.
21.
Neumann T, Erdogan A, Reiner C, Siemon G, Kurzidim K, Berkowitsch A, et al. Ambulatory electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation by means of biphasic versus monophasic shock delivery. A prospective randomized study. Z Kardiol. 2004;93:381–7.
22.
Scholten M, Szili-Torok T, Klootwijk P, Jordaens L. Comparison of monophasic and biphasic shocks for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Heart. 2003;89:1032–4.
23.
Nguyen ST, Belley-Côté EP, Ibrahim O, Um KJ, Lengyel A, Adli T, et al. Techniques improving electrical cardioversion success for patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and metaanalysis. EP Europace. 2023;25:318–30.
24.
Winkelmann J, Y L, Rebac B. Health systems in action: Bosnia and Herzegovina. World Health Organization. 2022;9–10.
25.
Fried AM, Strout TD, Perron AD. Electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation in the emergency department: A large single-centre experience. Am J Emerg Med. 2021;42:115–20.
26.
Sacchetti A, Williams J, Levi S, Akula D. Impact of emergency department management of atrial fibrillation on hospital charges. West J Emerg Med. 2013;14:55–7.

Citation

Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License

 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.