ReviewCureus2025
Effectiveness of Immediate Pharmacological Versus Electrical Cardioversion on Hemodynamic Stability and Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently encountered arrhythmia in emergency departments (EDs), often requiring urgent rhythm control when rate control fails. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare electrical cardioversion (ECV) and pharmacological cardioversion (PCV) in adult patients with both new-onset AF (NOAF) and refractoryAF, defined in the included studies as AF unresponsive to initial rate control and necessitating immediate rhythm intervention due to ongoing symptoms or hemodynamic instability. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included randomized or observational trials comparing ECV and PCV in emergency settings. Screening and selection were performed independently and in duplicate. Eight studies (n=1,561) were included. ECV generally showed higher rhythm restoration rates, especially in persistent AF (e.g., 59.1% vs 12.5%; p=0.002). However, the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.31 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-3.13; p=0.55), indicating no significant difference. Wide CIs and high heterogeneity (I²=88%) reflect imprecision and possible underpowering. Findings in persistent AF were not from a predefined subgroup analysis and should be interpreted cautiously. Three studies assessed discharge rates; pooled analysis showed no significant difference (OR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.24-1.79; p=0.42; I²=77%), despite individual studies favoring ECV for earlier discharge. Both strategies were safe, with no deaths or major complications. Safety assessments included hypotension, bradyarrhythmias, and procedural complications. Minor adverse events were rare and transient. In conclusion, ECV and PCV are both effective and safe for managing refractory AF in emergency settings. Clinical choice should consider patient-specific factors and provider experience.
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.