A Multicenter Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Chemical‐first or Electrical‐first Cardioversion Strategy for Patients With Uncomplicated Acute Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients with uncomplicated atrial fibrillation (AF) of less than 48 hours may be safely managed with rhythm control. Although both chemical-first and electrical-first strategies have been advocated, there are no comparative effectiveness data to guide clinicians. METHODS: score of 0 or 1 were randomized using concealed allocation in a 1:1 ratio to one of the following strategies: 1) chemical cardioversion with procainamide infusion, followed by electrical countershock if unsuccessful; or 2) electrical cardioversion, followed by procainamide infusion if unsuccessful. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival. Secondary outcomes included ED length-of-stay (LOS); prespecified ED-based adverse events; and 30-day ED revisits, hospitalizations, strokes, deaths, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: scores. All patients were discharged home, with 83 (99%) in sinus rhythm. In the chemical-first group, 13 of 41 patients (32%) were discharged within 4 hours compared to 29 of 43 patients (67%) in the electrical-first group (p = 0.001). In the chemical-first group, the median ED LOS was 5.1 hours (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.5 to 5.9 hours) compared to 3.5 hours (IQR = 2.4 to 4.6 hours) in the electrical-first group, for a median difference of 1.2 hours (95% confidence interval = 0.4 to 2.0 hours, p < 0.001). No patients experienced stroke or death. All other outcomes, including adverse events, ED revisits, and QoL, were similar. CONCLUSION: In uncomplicated ED AF patients managed with rhythm control, chemical-first and electrical-first strategies both appear to be successful and well tolerated; however, an electrical-first strategy results in a significantly shorter ED LOS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".