ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
How to Optimize Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Value of SII for Prediction of Pharmacological Cardioversion Success in Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Predicting the Outcomes of External Direct Current Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Adverse events in different administration routes of amiodarone: a pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Right atrial thrombus formation in a dog after successful electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardioversion (CV) is an essential component of rhythm control strategy in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Timing of CV is an important manageable factor in optimizing the safety and efficacy of CV. Based on observational studies, the success rate of CV seems to be best (≈95%) at 12−48 h after the onset of arrhythmic symptoms compared with a lower success rate of ≈85% in later elective CV. Early AF recurrences are also less common after acute CV compared with later elective CV. CV causes a temporary increase in the risk of thromboembolic complications. Effective anticoagulation reduces this risk, especially during the first 2 weeks after successful CV. However, even during therapeutic anticoagulation, each elective CV increases the risk of stroke 4-fold (0.4% vs. 0.1%) during the first month after the procedure, compared with acute (<48 h) CV or avoiding CV. Spontaneous CVs are common during the early hours of AF. The short wait-and-see approach, up to 24−48 h, is a reasonable option for otherwise healthy but mildly symptomatic patients who are using therapeutic anticoagulation, since they are most likely to have spontaneous rhythm conversion and have no need for active CV. The probability of early treatment failure and antiarrhythmic treatment options should be evaluated before proceeding to CV to avoid the risks of futile CVs.
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.