Which shock works best for AFib? new trial pits zoll vs lifepak

NCT ID NCT05992623

First seen Jun 26, 2026 · Last updated Jun 26, 2026

Summary

This study tested two different defibrillator waveforms—Zoll's 200J rectilinear biphasic shock and Lifepak's 360J biphasic truncated exponential shock—to see which restores normal heart rhythm better in people with atrial fibrillation. Over 500 adults were randomly assigned to receive one type of shock during a cardioversion procedure. The main goal was to compare how many patients had a normal heartbeat one minute after the first shock, and also to check for side effects.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance
external defibrillator (Zoll or Lifepak)
What this could lead to
If one waveform proves more effective, hospitals may adopt it to improve success rates for restoring normal heart rhythm with fewer shocks.
What could go wrong
This is a completed, moderate-sized trial, but results may not apply to all patients or settings. Both shocks are already in use, so no major breakthrough is expected.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for ATRIAL FIBRILLATION are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

Contacts and locations

Locations

  • Inova Health System

    Falls Church, Virginia, 22042, United States

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.