Why the study?
Does intravenous diltiazem improve acute rate control compared to intravenous metoprolol in patients with atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department?
Does intravenous diltiazem improve acute rate control compared to intravenous metoprolol in patients with atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department?
Intravenous diltiazem may be more effective than intravenous metoprolol for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department, though evidence is limited.
May favor diltiazem over metoprolol for acute ED AF rate control; strengthens meta-analytic evidence for preferential use.
This is a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy of calcium channel blockers to β-blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department setting. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry were searched. Relative risk (95% confidence interval) was calculated between drugs and methodological quality of included studies was evaluated. Of the 1003 studies yielded by our initial search, two met inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. These were randomized double-blinded studies (n=92) comparing intravenous diltiazem with intravenous metoprolol. The combined relative risk of acute rate control by diltiazem versus metoprolol was 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.2-2.6). On the basis of the paucity of available evidence, diltiazem may be more effective than metoprolol in achieving rapid rate control, but high-quality randomized studies are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martindale et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: