Ari Moskowitz1, Kenneth P Chen, Avraham Z Cooper, Abdullah Chahin, Mohammad M Ghassemi, Leo Anthony Celi. 1. *Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts†Department of Internal Medicine, Danbury Hospital, Danbury, Connecticut‡Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio§Division of Critical Care Medicine, Alpert School of Medicine-Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island||Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is common during critical illness. In this study, we explore the comparative effectiveness of three commonly used drugs (metoprolol, diltiazem, and amiodarone) in the management of atrial fibrillation with RVR in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Data pertaining to the first ICU admission were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Patients who received one of the above pharmacologic agents while their heart rate was > 110 bpm and had atrial fibrillation documented in the clinical chart were included. Propensity score weighting using a generalized boosted model was used to compare medication failure rates (second agent prior to termination of RVR). Secondary outcomes included time to control, control within 4 h, and mortality. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred forty-six patients were included: 736 received metoprolol, 292 received diltiazem, and 618 received amiodarone. Compared with those who received metoprolol, failure rates were higher amongst those who received amiodarone (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.87, P = 0.03) and there was a trend towards increased failure rates in patients who received diltiazem (OR 1.35, CI 0.89-2.07, P = 0.16). Amongst patients who received a single agent, patients who received diltiazem were less likely to be controlled at 4-h than those who received metoprolol (OR 0.64, CI 0.43-097, P = 0.03). Initial agent was not associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, metoprolol was the most commonly used agent for atrial fibrillation with RVR. Metoprolol had a lower failure rate than amiodarone and was superior to diltiazem in achieving rate control at 4 h.
PURPOSE:Atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is common during critical illness. In this study, we explore the comparative effectiveness of three commonly used drugs (metoprolol, diltiazem, and amiodarone) in the management of atrial fibrillation with RVR in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Data pertaining to the first ICU admission were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Patients who received one of the above pharmacologic agents while their heart rate was > 110 bpm and had atrial fibrillation documented in the clinical chart were included. Propensity score weighting using a generalized boosted model was used to compare medication failure rates (second agent prior to termination of RVR). Secondary outcomes included time to control, control within 4 h, and mortality. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred forty-six patients were included: 736 received metoprolol, 292 received diltiazem, and 618 received amiodarone. Compared with those who received metoprolol, failure rates were higher amongst those who received amiodarone (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03-1.87, P = 0.03) and there was a trend towards increased failure rates in patients who received diltiazem (OR 1.35, CI 0.89-2.07, P = 0.16). Amongst patients who received a single agent, patients who received diltiazem were less likely to be controlled at 4-h than those who received metoprolol (OR 0.64, CI 0.43-097, P = 0.03). Initial agent was not associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, metoprolol was the most commonly used agent for atrial fibrillation with RVR. Metoprolol had a lower failure rate than amiodarone and was superior to diltiazem in achieving rate control at 4 h.
Authors: Ciara M Shaver; Wei Chen; David R Janz; Addison K May; Dawood Darbar; Gordon R Bernard; Julie A Bastarache; Lorraine B Ware Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: A N Mooss; R L Wurdeman; S M Mohiuddin; A P Reyes; J T Sugimoto; W Scott; D E Hilleman; A Seyedroudbari Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: G Delle Karth; A Geppert; T Neunteufl; U Priglinger; M Haumer; M Gschwandtner; P Siostrzonek; G Heinz Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christian Fromm; Salvador J Suau; Victor Cohen; Antonios Likourezos; Samantha Jellinek-Cohen; Jonathan Rose; John Marshall Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: J R Balser; E A Martinez; B D Winters; P W Perdue; A W Clarke; W Huang; G F Tomaselli; T Dorman; K Campbell; P Lipsett; M J Breslow; B A Rosenfeld Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Salmaan Kanji; Robert Stewart; Dean A Fergusson; Lauralyn McIntyre; Alexis F Turgeon; Paul C Hébert Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 7.598
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: Eric Y Ding; Daniella Albuquerque; Michael Winter; Sophia Binici; Jaclyn Piche; Syed Khairul Bashar; Ki Chon; Allan J Walkey; David D McManus Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-07-28 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Min Suk Chae; Hyunjoon Park; Ho Joong Choi; Misun Park; Hyun Sik Chung; Sang Hyun Hong; Chul Soo Park; Jong Ho Choi; Hyung Mook Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mahrukh Imran; Linda Kwakkenbos; Stephen J McCall; Kimberly A McCord; Ole Fröbert; Lars G Hemkens; Merrick Zwarenstein; Clare Relton; Danielle B Rice; Sinéad M Langan; Eric I Benchimol; Lehana Thabane; Marion K Campbell; Margaret Sampson; David Erlinge; Helena M Verkooijen; David Moher; Isabelle Boutron; Philippe Ravaud; Jon Nicholl; Rudolf Uher; Maureen Sauvé; John Fletcher; David Torgerson; Chris Gale; Edmund Juszczak; Brett D Thombs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jonathan P Bedford; Alistair Johnson; Oliver Redfern; Stephen Gerry; James Doidge; David Harrison; Kim Rajappan; Kathryn Rowan; J Duncan Young; Paul Mouncey; Peter J Watkinson Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Laura Drikite; Jonathan P Bedford; Liam O'Bryan; Tatjana Petrinic; Kim Rajappan; James Doidge; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan; Paul R Mouncey; Duncan Young; Peter J Watkinson; Mark Corbett Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 9.097