To the Editor,
1.
We read with interest the recent meta‐analysis by Taha et al. (2025) on active chest compression during direct current cardioversion (DCCV) for atrial fibrillation (AF), which offers a valuable synthesis of randomized trials. While commendable, certain methodological and clinical aspects deserve closer scrutiny.
The study by Voskoboinik et al. (2019) markedly differs from others as it compared handheld paddles versus patches in obese patients, demonstrating superior success with paddles. Manual pressure was only evaluated in a substudy. Squara et al. (2021) and Kirchhof et al. (2005) highlighted the benefits of compression, while Ferreira et al. (2024) reported no added advantage.
Secondly, defibrillator models and waveforms, known to influence success, were not stratified in the meta‐analysis. Schmidt et al. (2017) showed biphasic truncated exponential waveforms outperformed pulsed biphasic forms. Kirchhof et al. (2005) similarly found biphasic shocks and paddle electrodes to improve outcomes. These technical nuances are critical for clinical translation but were not considered.
Antiarrhythmic drug use, a key modifier of cardioversion outcomes, was also not addressed. Squara et al. (2021) and Ferreira et al. (2024) documented baseline drug use but did not adjust for it. Moreover, AF duration is a well‐established determinant of success; Gallagher et al. (2001) reported success rates declining from 84% (< 30 days) to 66% (> 180 days), while Carpenter et al. (2019) confirmed that shorter AF history correlates with better long‐term outcomes.
Compression methodology also varied. Only Squara et al. (2021) specified a compression force (~80 N), while other studies lacked standardized parameters. This inconsistency limits reproducibility and comparability.
Lastly, some included studies, such as Kirchhof et al. (2005), used older‐generation defibrillators (e.g., Lifepak 9/12), whereas newer trials like Ferreira et al. (2024) employed advanced biphasic platforms with impedance compensation. This technological evolution is significant and may impact the generalizability of pooled results.
In conclusion, while Taha et al. (2025) provide valuable insight into active compression during DCCV, future research should rigorously account for procedural variables such as compression parameters, waveform types, antiarrhythmic drug use, AF duration, and defibrillator technology to enhance clinical relevance.
Author Contributions
Yusuf Hosoglu: conceptualization, writing – original draft, investigation. Mehmet Göl: writing – review and editing.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI) were used solely to assist in language editing and format alignment during manuscript preparation. The authors reviewed and approved all content.
Hosoglu, Y. , and Göl M.. 2025. “Letter to the Editor Regarding “Active Compression During External Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”.” Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology 30, no. 4: e70095. 10.1111/anec.70095.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
- Carpenter, A. , Graby J., Medland R., et al. 2019. “Efficacy of DC Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation: A Large Retrospective Observational Study.” Heart 105, no. Suppl 6: A34. [Google Scholar]
- Ferreira, D. , Mikhail P., Lim J., et al. 2024. “Manual Chest Pressure During Direct Current Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Control Trial (PRESSURE‐AF).” JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology 10, no. 10: 2207–2213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gallagher, M. M. , Guo X. H., Poloniecki J. D., Guan Yap Y., Ward D., and Camm A. J.. 2001. “Initial Energy Setting, Outcome and Efficiency in Direct Current Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 38, no. 5: 1498–1504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kirchhof, P. , Monnig G., Wasmer K., et al. 2005. “A Trial of Self‐Adhesive Patch Electrodes and Hand‐Held Paddle Electrodes for External Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation (MOBIPAPA).” European Heart Journal 26, no. 13: 1292–1297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt, A. S. , Lauridsen K. G., Adelborg K., et al. 2017. “Cardioversion Efficacy Using Pulsed Biphasic or Biphasic Truncated Exponential Waveforms: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” Journal of the American Heart Association 6, no. 3: e004981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Squara, F. , Elbaum C., Garret G., et al. 2021. “Active Compression Versus Standard Anterior‐Posterior Defibrillation for External Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Randomized Study.” Heart Rhythm 18, no. 3: 360–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taha, H. I. , Nazir A., Ibrahim A. A., et al. 2025. “Active Compression During External Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology 30, no. 3: e70074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Voskoboinik, A. , Moskovitch J., Plunkett G., et al. 2019. “Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation in Obese Patients: Results From the Cardioversion‐BMI Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 30, no. 2: 155–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.