Trial reportHeart (British Cardiac Society)2004
Sinus rhythm maintenance following DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is not improved by temporary precardioversion treatment with oral verapamil.
Trial report in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Targeted nanodelivery strategies for atrial fibrillation: concomitant targeting of fibrosis suppression and electrical conduction restoration through advanced nanobiotechnology.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Which antiarrhythmic drug to choose after electrical cardioversion: A study on non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate prospectively the effects of pretreatment with verapamil on the maintenance of sinus rhythm after direct current (DC) cardioversion.
designRandomised, active control, open label, parallel group comparison of verapamil versus digoxin. SETTINGS: Multicentre study in three teaching and three non-teaching hospitals in Sweden. PATIENTS: 100 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) of at least four weeks' duration and indications for cardioversion were assigned randomly to two groups, one treated with verapamil (verapamil group) and the other with digoxin (digoxin group) before cardioversion. Fifty patients were assigned randomly to each treatment arm. After dropout of four patients from the digoxin group and seven patients from the verapamil group, data obtained from 89 patients were analysed.
interventionsAfter randomly assigned pretreatment with either verapamil or digoxin for four weeks, DC cardioversion was performed. If sinus rhythm was restored then verapamil treatment was discontinued.
main outcome measuresThe rate of AF recurrence was assessed one, four, eight, and 12 weeks after cardioversion.
results6 patients in the verapamil treated group and none in the digoxin treated group reverted to sinus rhythm spontaneously (p < 0.05). DC cardioversion restored sinus rhythm in 24 of 37 (65%) patients in the verapamil group and 41 of 46 patients (89%) in the digoxin group (p < 0.05). After 12 weeks' follow up 28% (13 of 46) of digoxin pretreated patients versus 9% (four of 43) of verapamil pretreated patients remained in sinus rhythm (p < 0.05).
conclusionPretreatment with verapamil alone does not improve maintenance of sinus rhythm after DC cardioversion in patients with AF. The rate of spontaneous cardioversion may be improved by verapamil.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.