OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy of intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, and amiodarone for acute ventricular rate (VR) control in patients with acute symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) necessitating hospitalization. DESIGN: Randomized control trial. SETTING:Acute emergency medical admission unit in a regional teaching hospital in Hong Kong. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty adult patients with acute AF and rapid VR (>120 bpm). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, or amiodarone for VR control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was sustained VR control (<90 bpm) within 24 hours; the secondary end points included AF symptom improvement and length of hospitalization. At 24 hours, VR control was achieved in 119 of 150 patients (79%). The time to VR control was significantly shorter among patients in the diltiazem group (log-rank test, p < 0.0001) with the percentage of patients who achieved VR control being higher in the diltiazem group (90%) than the digoxin group (74%) and the amiodarone group (74%). The median time to VR control was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3 hours, 1-21 hours) compared with the digoxin (6 hours, 3-15 hours, p < 0.001) and amiodarone groups (7 hours, 1-18 hours, p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients in the diltiazem group persistently had the lowest mean VR after the first hour of drug administration compared with the other two groups (p < 0.05). The diltiazem group had the largest reduction in AF symptom frequency score and severity score (p < 0.0001). In addition, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3.9 +/- 1.6 days) compared with digoxin (4.7 +/- 2.1 days, p = 0.023) and amiodarone groups (4.7 +/- 2.2 days, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with digoxin and amiodarone, intravenous diltiazem was safe and effective in achieving VR control to improve symptoms and to reduce hospital stay in patients with acute AF.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical efficacy of intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, and amiodarone for acute ventricular rate (VR) control in patients with acute symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) necessitating hospitalization. DESIGN: Randomized control trial. SETTING: Acute emergency medical admission unit in a regional teaching hospital in Hong Kong. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty adult patients with acute AF and rapid VR (>120 bpm). INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous diltiazem, digoxin, or amiodarone for VR control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was sustained VR control (<90 bpm) within 24 hours; the secondary end points included AF symptom improvement and length of hospitalization. At 24 hours, VR control was achieved in 119 of 150 patients (79%). The time to VR control was significantly shorter among patients in the diltiazem group (log-rank test, p < 0.0001) with the percentage of patients who achieved VR control being higher in the diltiazem group (90%) than the digoxin group (74%) and the amiodarone group (74%). The median time to VR control was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3 hours, 1-21 hours) compared with the digoxin (6 hours, 3-15 hours, p < 0.001) and amiodarone groups (7 hours, 1-18 hours, p = 0.003). Furthermore, patients in the diltiazem group persistently had the lowest mean VR after the first hour of drug administration compared with the other two groups (p < 0.05). The diltiazem group had the largest reduction in AF symptom frequency score and severity score (p < 0.0001). In addition, length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the diltiazem group (3.9 +/- 1.6 days) compared with digoxin (4.7 +/- 2.1 days, p = 0.023) and amiodarone groups (4.7 +/- 2.2 days, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with digoxin and amiodarone, intravenous diltiazem was safe and effective in achieving VR control to improve symptoms and to reduce hospital stay in patients with acute AF.
Authors: Mik Wetterslev; Nicolai Haase; Christian Hassager; Emilie P Belley-Cote; William F McIntyre; Youzhong An; Jiawei Shen; Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti; Fernando G Zampieri; Helio Penna Guimaraes; Anders Granholm; Anders Perner; Morten Hylander Møller Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Gyorgy Frendl; Alissa C Sodickson; Mina K Chung; Albert L Waldo; Bernard J Gersh; James E Tisdale; Hugh Calkins; Sary Aranki; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Stephen Cassivi; Sidney C Smith; Dawood Darbar; Jon O Wee; Thomas K Waddell; David Amar; Dale Adler Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ari Moskowitz; Kenneth P Chen; Avraham Z Cooper; Abdullah Chahin; Mohammad M Ghassemi; Leo Anthony Celi Journal: Shock Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 3.454