Acute Management Of Atrial Fibrillation: Comparison Of Metoprolol And Diltiazem In Early Rate Control
Kaitlyn Withers,Wesley Parker,Adam Schertz,Jonathan Mayl,Drake Scott,Abigail Thomas,Stephanie Ira,Patrick Whalen,Ghanshyam Shantha,Prashant Bhave,Barbara Pisani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.450
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Introduction Atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (AF RVR) has hemodynamic consequences and can lead to, or exacerbate pre-existing heart failure (HF). Current guidelines recommend use of intravenous (IV) calcium channel blockers (CCB) or beta blockers (BB) for acute rate control of stable AF. However, these medications have negative inotropic and chronotropic effects and may cause deleterious effects in this patient population. This study analyzed the outcomes of patients who received IV CCB or BB for acute rate control of AF in the emergency department (ED). Methods An observational, retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients admitted to the hospital via any Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist system ED between June and December 2019. Patients with AF and a heart rate >110 beats per minute (bpm) who received IV metoprolol or IV diltiazem within ±1 hour of a documented heart rate >110 bpm were included in the study. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, shock, or new renal replacement therapy (RRT). Secondary analysis was performed with patients stratified by the presence of chronic HF, both reduced and preserved ejection fractions. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to assess the effect of acute rate control on the primary outcome after adjustment for other patient-related variables. Analysis was performed using JMP®, Version 15.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Results A total of 1,188 patients met inclusion criteria with a median age of 71 (IQR 61-80). 48% were female, 76% were non-Hispanic, whites and 406 (34%) had a history of HF. Baseline demographics are shown in Table 1. Overall, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome for the unadjusted or adjusted models. In the adjusted analysis, when stratified by HF history, there was a significantly increased risk of the primary outcome in the IV diltiazem group, OR 2.09 (1.13 - 3.86; p = 0.0189), shown in Table 2. Conclusion In patients with pre-existing HF who received IV diltiazem for rate control of AF RVR, there is a two-fold increase in the adjusted odds of a composite of 30-day mortality, shock, or new RRT. This suggests that choice of rate control agent for acute AF RVR may influence hospital outcomes. Randomized trials to determine the most efficacious agent and optimal rate or rhythm control strategy for AF RVR are needed.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems