This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the one-year outcomes of anterior–posterior (AP) and anterior— lateral (AL) methods of cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF). A total of 2168 patients were included, with 1125 patients in the AP cardioversion group (Group 1) and 1043 patients in the AL cardioversion group (Group 2). Baseline characteristics, primary and secondary outcomes, safety outcomes, and logistic regression predictors of sinus rhythm were analyzed. The results showed comparable rates of maintaining sinus rhythm at the one-year follow-up between the two groups (65.8% in Group 1 vs. 65.7% in Group 2, p = 0.042). There were no significant differences in the incidence of AF recurrence or safety outcomes between the groups. Logistic regression analysis identified the duration of AF and the presence of coronary artery disease as significant predictors of sinus rhythm maintenance. Additionally, the use of the AL method was associated with a higher likelihood of AF recurrence compared to the AP method (p = 0.043). These findings suggest that both the AP and AL methods of cardioversion are effective in achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm in AF patients. The duration of AF and the presence of coronary artery disease should be considered when selecting the cardioversion approach. These results contribute to the understanding of optimal treatment strategies for AF and support personalized management decisions based on individual patient characteristics.

In the context of ARVC, a systematic review of the validation of the ARVC risk score can provide insights into the accuracy and reliability of this score in identifying patients at high risk of ARVC. Digital databases were searched to identify the relevant studies using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of 8 studies were included in this review. The review found that the sensitivity of the ARVC risk scores ranged from 80 to 95%, and the specificity ranged from 31 to 79%. The PPV was 55%, and the NPV was 88%. The ARVC score provided a C-index for a 5-year VA risk prediction of 0.84 [95% CI (0.74–0.93)] and a Harrell C-index of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65–0.75). The calibration slope was 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.03). ARVC score demonstrated a significant event 5-year threshold between 15 and 20% and the classical ARVC 5-years/freedom-from-VA rate was 0.76(0.66–0.89) and the non-classical form 5-years/freedom-from-VA rate was 0.58 (0.43–0.78). In conclusion, the validation of ARVC risk scores is an essential step toward improving the accuracy of ARVC diagnosis and risk stratification. Further studies are needed to establish the accuracy and reliability of ARVC risk scores and to address the limitations of the current evidence.