Diltiazem vs. Metoprolol in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter with Rapid Ventricular Rate in the Emergency Department

• Published in: The Journal of emergency medicine Vol. 49; no. 2; pp. 175 - 182
• Main Authors: Fromm, Christian, MD, FAAEM, FACEP, Suau, Salvador J., MD, FACEP, Cohen, Victor, PharmD, Likourezos, Antonios, MA, MPH, Jellinek-Cohen, Samantha, PharmD, Rose, Jonathan, MD, FACEP, Marshall, John, MD, FACEP
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-08-2015
• Subjects: Aged; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - therapeutic use; atrial fibrillation; Atrial Fibrillation - drug therapy; atrial flutter; Atrial Flutter - drug therapy; Blood Pressure; diltiazem; Diltiazem - therapeutic use; Double-Blind Method; Emergency; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; metoprolol; Metoprolol - therapeutic use; Prospective Studies; rate control; Sampling Studies; Tachycardia, Ventricular - drug therapy; diltiazem; atrial fibrillation; rate control; metoprolol; atrial flutter
• ISSN: 0736-4679; 2352-5029
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.01.014

Abstract Background Diltiazem (calcium channel blocker) and metoprolol (beta-blocker) are both commonly used to treat atrial fibrillation/flutter (AFF) in the emergency department (ED). However, there is considerable regional variability in emergency physician practice patterns and debate among physicians as to which agent is more effective. To date, only one small prospective, randomized trial has compared the effectiveness of diltiazem and metoprolol for rate control of AFF in the ED and concluded no difference in effectiveness between the two agents. Objective Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of diltiazem with metoprolol for rate control of AFF in the ED. Methods A convenience sample of adult patients presenting with rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter was randomly assigned to receive either diltiazem or metoprolol. The study team monitored each subject's systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rates for 30 min. Results In the first 5 min, 50.0% of the diltiazem group and 10.7% of the metoprolol group reached the target heart rate (HR) of <100 beats per minute (bpm) ( p  < 0.005). By 30 min, 95.8% of the diltiazem group and 46.4% of the metoprolol group reached the target HR < 100 bpm ( p  < 0.0001). Mean decrease in HR for the diltiazem group was more rapid and substantial than that of the metoprolol group. From a safety perspective, there was no difference between the groups with respect to hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) and bradycardia (HR < 60 bpm). Conclusions Diltiazem was more effective in achieving rate control in ED patients with AFF and did so with no increased incidence of adverse effects.