Download PDFPDF

BET 2: Trendelenburg position helps to cardiovert patients in SVT back to sinus rhythm
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    No good evidence that Trendelenburg is better to cardiovert SVT
    • Andrew Appelboam, Emergency Physician Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital /REVERT study team

    Dear Sir,

    We read with interest the recent Best Evidence Topic (BET) report by L Varley and L Howard, ‘Trendelenburg position helps to cardiovert patients in SVT back to sinus rhythm.’[1] We are grateful that this BET highlighted the substantial benefit of using a postural modification to the Valsalva manoeuvre for re-entrant SVT[2]. However, whist we agree with the ‘Clinical Bottom Line’, we feel the title of this BET was misleading and does not reflect current evidence.

    ‘Trendelenburg position’ is typically used to describe a supine patient with the bed tilted head down below the level of the pelvis.[3] Although this position was associated with a higher rate of cardioversion in a small, uncontrolled before and after study[4], no physiological benefits of this position have been demonstrated[5] and it was not used in the REVERT trial, the largest RCT of VM modification to date.

    For clarification, in our study the Valsalva strain was conducted in the semi-sitting position with movement to the supine position with leg elevation, immediately at the end of the strain. There are plausible physiological reasons why this specific sequence of postural changes and timing of strain may improve Valsalva effectiveness as described in our paper. Although it is possible that Trendelenburg positioning after straining might further improve cardioversion rates, this has not been tested to date.

    Yours sincerely

    On behalf of the REVERT study Team

    ...Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.