Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 26, 2026

Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Effectiveness and costs of chemical versus electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation
Angelo A V de Paola1, Edilberto Figueiredo, Ricardo Sesso
1Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Rua Napoleão de Barros 593, ZIP 04024-002, São Paulo, Brazil. depaola@uol.com.br
Insights
Starting atrial fibrillation cardioversion with antiarrhythmic drugs is more effective and less expensive than electrical cardioversion. Chemical cardioversion is a viable initial treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation, but carries risks for patients with heart disease.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
- Health Economics
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent cardiac arrhythmia with significant healthcare costs.
- Current interventions for AF to sinus rhythm include antiarrhythmic drugs and electrical cardioversion.
- Optimal initial strategy for cardioversion remains undetermined.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initial chemical versus electrical cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation.
- To evaluate the overall success rates and complication profiles of different initial cardioversion strategies.
Main Methods:
- A multicenter randomized trial involving 139 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (duration < 6 months).
- Comparison of initial treatment with chemical cardioversion versus electrical cardioversion.
- Cross-over allowed if initial treatment failed to achieve sinus rhythm.
Main Results:
- Initial cardioversion efficacy was comparable between chemical (74%) and electrical (73%) approaches (P=0.95).
- The strategy of initiating with antiarrhythmic drugs demonstrated higher effectiveness (96%) versus electrical cardioversion (84%) (P=0.0016).
- Chemical cardioversion was less expensive ($1240 vs. $1917; P=0.002) and associated with life-threatening complications in 5% of patients with structural heart disease.
Conclusions:
- For persistent atrial fibrillation (< 6 months), initiating cardioversion with antiarrhythmic drugs is more effective and cost-effective than electrical cardioversion.
- While initial chemical and electrical cardioversion show similar efficacy, drug-based initiation offers better outcomes.
- Patients with structural heart disease undergoing chemical cardioversion face increased susceptibility to severe complications.
Background:
Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and has an important impact on costs of medical assistance. Traditional interventions to convert atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm are antiarrhythmic drugs and external electrical cardioversion. However, the best option for starting the cardioversion is not well established.
Methods:
In a multicentre randomised trial of 139 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation lasting less than 6 months, we compared the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness ratio of initial treatment with chemical or electrical cardioversion. Subjects who did not achieve sinus rhythm with chemical cardioversion were considered to undergo electrical cardioversion and vice-versa.
Results:
The efficacy of the initial attempt for cardioversion was similar with chemical or electrical cardioversion (74 vs. 73%, P=0.95). However, the strategy of starting with antiarrhythmic drugs was more effective than with electrical procedure (96 vs. 84%, P=0.0016). Initiating with chemical cardioversion was also less expensive than with electrical cardioversion (1240 US dollars vs. 1917 US dollars ; P=0.002). Life-threatening complications occurred only during chemical cardioversion (5%), all of them in patients with structural heart disease.
Conclusions:
In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation of less than 6 months, initial chemical or electrical cardioversion appear to be similar but the strategy of starting the cardioversion with antiarrhythmic drugs is more effective and less expensive than starting with the electrical procedure. Patients with structural heart disease undergoing chemical cardioversion seem to be more susceptible to severe complications.
Related Concept Videos
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Electroconvulsive Therapy
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class II Agents as β-Adrenergic Blockers
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use

