Search

Background Pill-in-the-pocket treatment should be prescribed only if the administration of a loading oral dose of flecainide or propafenone has been proved safe in hospital, since major adverse effects have been reported in 5% of patients during in-hospital treatment. However, in emergency rooms, the oral administration of these drugs for the conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) is very rarely used because it is time consuming. Objective To investigate whether tolerance to intravenous administration of flecainide or propafenone might predict the safety of pill-in-the-pocket treatment—the out-of-hospital self-administration of these drugs after the onset of palpitations—in patients with AF of recent onset. Methods One hundred and twenty-two patients with AF of recent onset who were successfully treated (conversion of AF within 2 h without major adverse effects) in hospital with intravenous flecainide or propafenone were discharged on pill-in-the-pocket treatment. Results During a mean follow-up of 11±4 months, 79 patients self-treated 213 arrhythmic episodes; treatment was successful in 201 episodes (94%). Major adverse events occurred in five patients (6%) and in four (5%) of these during the first oral treatment (one syncope, two presyncope, one sinus arrest). No patient reported symptoms attributable to bradyarrhythmia or hypotension during the self-treatment of arrhythmic recurrences when the first oral treatment was not accompanied by any major adverse effects. The study was prematurely terminated because of the high incidence of major adverse effects during the first out-of-hospital treatment. Conclusion The patient9s tolerance of intravenous administration of flecainide or propafenone does not seem to predict adverse effects during out-of-hospital self-administration of these drugs.

AIM—To define the effect of defibrillator paddle position on technical success and dc shock energy requirements of external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. METHODS—301 patients (mean (SD) age 62 (11) years) with stable atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to elective external cardioversion using anterolateral paddle position (ventricular apex-right infraclavicular area; group AL (151 patients)) or anteroposterior paddle position (sternal body-angle of the left scapula; group AP (150 patients)). A step up protocol was used, delivering a 3 J/kg body weight dc shock, then a 4 J/kg shock (maximum 360 J), and finally a second 4 J/kg shock using the alternative paddle location. RESULTS—The two groups were comparable for the all clinical variables evaluated. The cumulative percentage of patients successfully converted to sinus rhythm was 58% in group AL and 67% in group AP with low energy dc shock (NS); this rose to 76% in group AL and to 87% in group AP with high energy dc shock (p = 0.013). Thirty seven patients in group AL and 19 in group AP experienced dc shock with the alternative paddle position; atrial fibrillation persisted in 10/37 in group AL and in 10/19 in group AP. Mean dc shock energy requirements were lower for group AP patients than for group AL patients, at 383 (235) v 451 (287) J, p = 0.025. Arrhythmia duration was the only factor that affected the technical success of external cardioversion (successful: 281 patients, 80 (109) days; unsuccessful: 20 patients, 193 (229) days; p 6 months: 29 of 37 (78%) v 252 of 264 (95%); p = 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS—An anteroposterior defibrillator paddle position is superior to an anterolateral location with regard to technical success in external cardioversion of stable atrial fibrillation, and permits lower dc shock energy requirements. Arrhythmia duration is the only clinical variable that can limit the restoration of sinus rhythm. Keywords: atrial fibrillation; cardioversion; electric countershock

The Authors' reply: We thank Drs Anusionwu and Wali1 for their interest in our paper2 regarding ‘pill-in-the-pocket’ treatment of recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). Only 122 patients with AF were enrolled following successful in-hospital treatment with intravenous flecainide or propafenone because the study was interrupted on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. In …