Low-dose diltiazem in atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response

Safety of Diltiazem for Acute Management of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Diltiazem is an effective rate control agent for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular rate (AF RVR). However, its negative inotropic effects may increase the risk for worsening heart failure in patients with a reduced ejection fraction (EF).

OBJECTIVES

This observational study aims to describe the incidence of worsening heart failure in patients who receive intravenous diltiazem for acute atrial fibrillation management.

METHODS

Adult patients that received diltiazem in the emergency department (ED) for AF RVR (heart rate ≥ 100 beats/min) from 2021 to 2022 and had a prior documented EF were included. The primary outcome is worsening heart failure within 24 h of diltiazem administration. Secondary outcomes include return ED visits and death within 7 days. EF percentage was compared across outcomes using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Outcomes were compared by reduced EF (< 50%) and preserved EF (≥ 50%). Continuous data were summarized with medians and interquartile ranges, and categorical features were summarized with frequency counts and percentages. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for numeric outcomes and chi-squared tests or Fisher's exact tests for categorical outcomes, with a p-value < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 674 patients with AF RVR that received diltiazem, and 386 patients met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Baseline demographics included a median age of 72 (64-81) years, with 14.5% of patients having a prior diagnosis of congestive heart failure. EF < 50% was identified in 13.7% of patients (n = 53), of which approximately 30% of these patients safely discharged home after receiving i.v. diltiazem. The primary outcome of worsening heart failure occurred in 7/41 (17%) and 10/207 (4.8%) patients with reduced and preserved ejection fractions, respectively, who were admitted to the hospital (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The development of worsening heart failure is multifactorial and may include the use of diltiazem in critically ill patients requiring hospital admission.

DOsing Strategy Effectiveness of Diltiazem in Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Response

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the dose-dependent comparative safety and effectiveness between weight-based and alternative dosing strategies for diltiazem in atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response who received treatment with intravenous diltiazem. Groups were retrospectively categorized according to the initial dose: low (<0.1875 mg/kg), weight-based (0.1875 to 0.3125 mg/kg), and high (>0.3125 mg/kg). The primary outcome was rate control (heart rate <100 beats/min) within 30 minutes of treatment.

RESULTS

Of 345 records, 252 were included. Because of scarcity (N=6), outcomes for the high-dose group were not analyzed. By 30 minutes, the weight-based dosing group had more often achieved rate control (weight-based 55%; low 27%; difference 29% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17% to 40%]). Regression analysis identified the weight-based dosing group (odds ratio 3.63, 95% CI 2.06 to 6.39) and initial heart rate of less than 145 beats/min (odds ratio 2.56, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.51) as variables associated with the primary outcome. The weight-based dosing group less often required rescue therapy (weight-based 6%; low 17%; difference -12% [95% CI -20% to -4%]) relative to the low-dose group. Mortality was higher in the low-dose group than in the weight-based dosing group (low 7%; weight-based 1%; difference 6% [95% CI 1% to 11%]).

CONCLUSION

This study shows dose-dependent hemodynamic effects with diltiazem in patients with atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. Weight-based diltiazem (0.25 mg/kg) was associated with greater rate control with no evidence of increased adverse effects. There was no perceived advantage in using lower, alternative doses.

Diltiazem Dosing Strategies in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Rate

Introduction

Diltiazem is commonly used for the management of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) in the emergency department (ED). Conflicting studies comparing the efficacy of diltiazem have led to various dosing strategies. The objective of this study was to investigate diltiazem administration in a community ED and determine the effect of varying doses on heart rate (HR) control, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP).

Methods

This is a retrospective, single-center study of adult patients treated with diltiazem for AFIB-RVR in the ED between January 1 and December 31, 2019. Inclusion criteria included pretreatment HR > 120 beats per minute (bpm). Patients were administered diltiazem at the discretion of the ED physician. Primary endpoint was time to achieve HR < 100 bpm after diltiazem. Secondary endpoints included mean weight-based dose of diltiazem, percentage of patients achieving HR < 100 bpm within 240 minutes of diltiazem, nadir SBP and nadir DBP.

Results

Ninety-nine patients were included in the study. Seventy-two percent of patients received ≤ 10 mg diltiazem bolus. Mean weight-based dose of diltiazem bolus was 0.13 mg/kg. Mean time to achieve HR < 100 bpm was 270 minutes for the entire cohort. Patients treated with ≥ 0.13 mg/kg diltiazem achieved an HR < 100 bpm at a mean time of 169 minutes compared to 318 minutes for < 0.13 mg/kg (p = 0.0107). HR control was achieved in 61% of patients who received ≥ 0.13 mg/kg compared to 36% of patients who received < 0.13 mg/kg diltiazem (p = 0.0213). No patients discontinued diltiazem for hypotension or bradycardia. The lowest recorded SBP and DBP within 240 minutes of diltiazem were 90 mmHg and 47 mmHg, respectively. There was no significant difference in the lowest SBP and DBP for patients who received < 0.13 mg/kg compared to ≥ 0.13 mg/mg diltiazem.

Conclusion

The majority of patients with AFIB RVR received a 10 mg non-weight-based diltiazem bolus dose in the ED. Diltiazem bolus dosing ≥ 0.13 mg/kg was associated with significantly improved times to achieve HR control compared to < 0.13 mg/kg and was not associated with hypotension or bradycardia.

Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Currently, it remains unclear whether β-blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are preferred for the acute management of atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem for rate control.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to the emergency department between 2015 and 2019 with AF with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) and received IV metoprolol or diltiazem. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved rate control (defined as heart rate < 100 beats per minute). Secondary outcomes included time to rate control, percentage of patients requiring additional agents for rate control, and incidence of cardioversion, bradycardia, and hypotension.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were included in this study. Rate control was achieved in 35% and 41% of the metoprolol and diltiazem groups, respectively (P = 0.38). Mean time to rate control was not significantly different between the metoprolol and diltiazem groups (35 vs 21 minutes, P = 0.23). One patient developed hypotension, no patient developed bradycardia, and 4 patients required electric cardioversion. No adverse events were observed in patients with ejection fraction ≤40%.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

There was no difference in the achievement of rate control between IV metoprolol and diltiazem. This is the largest study to date comparing the two classes of agents for acute rate control in AF. No patient-specific factors were identified that would influence the preferential use of one medication over the other.

Weight-based versus non-weight-based diltiazem dosing in the setting of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response

PURPOSE

There is conflicting evidence to support the superiority of weight-based (WB) dosing of intravenous (IV) diltiazem over non-weight-based (NWB) dosing strategies in the management of atrial fibrillation (AFib) with rapid ventricular response (RVR).

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) in AFib with RVR and receiving IV diltiazem from 2015 to 2018. Those receiving a NWB dose were compared with those receiving a WB dose based on actual body weight (ABW). Secondary analyses evaluated safety profiles of the regimens and compared response in groups defined by ABW or ideal body weight (IBW).

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients were included in the analysis. No significant difference was observed in achieving a therapeutic response (66.5% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.18) or adverse events between the groups. Patients receiving a WB dose were significantly more likely to have a HR < 100 bpm than those receiving a NWB dose (40.9% vs. 53.5%, p = 0.01). When groups were defined by IBW, WB dosing was associated with a significantly higher incidence of achieving a therapeutic response (62.7% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In patients presenting with AF with RVR, there was no significant difference in achieving a therapeutic response between the two strategies. A WB dosing approach did result in a greater proportion of patients with a HR < 100 bpm. The utilization of IBW for WB dosing may result in an increased achievement of a therapeutic response.

Frequency of "on-label" use of intravenous diltiazem for rate control in patients with acute-onset atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

Purpose

The study was designed to characterize "on-label" use of i.v. diltiazem in patients with acute atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF).

Methods

An IRB-approved, single-center, retrospective, observational design was used. Eligible patients had acute AFF with heart rate >120 bpm and received i.v. diltiazem from June 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014. The primary outcome was frequency of on-label use of i.v. diltiazem, defined as use of at least one FDA-approved weight-based bolus dose followed by an infusion, if appropriate, in the absence of contraindications.

Results

A total of 300 patients were screened; 97 patients were included for analysis. I.V. diltiazem was used on-label in only 14 patients (14%). Of the 96 patients who received an initial diltiazem bolus injection, the median dose was significantly higher in patients for whom the diltiazem dose was on-label, as follows: 17.5 mg (interquartile range [IQR]), 10-20 mg vs. 10.0 mg (IQR, 10-20 mg), p < 0.02). Twenty-nine patients (35%) in the off-label group had a therapeutic response to diltiazem alone compared with 8 patients (57%) in the on-label group (p = 0.11). More patients treated with off-label diltiazem bolus injection required additional rate control medications (41% vs. 7%, p < 0.04).

Conclusion

In most patients, i.v. diltiazem was not used in accordance with FDA labeling. For most, i.v. diltiazem doses were lower than recommended and many of these patients required additional rate control medications to achieve a therapeutic response.

Esmolol Compared with Amiodarone in the Treatment of Recent-Onset Atrial Fibrillation (RAF): An Emergency Medicine External Validity Study

BACKGROUND

Recent-onset atrial fibrillation (RAF) is the most frequent supraventricular dysrhythmia in emergency medicine. Severely compromised patients require acute treatment with injectable drugs OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this external validity study was to compare the short-term efficacy of esmolol with that of amiodarone to treat severe RAF in an emergency setting.

METHODS

This retrospective survey was conducted in mobile intensive care units by analyzing patient records between 2002 and 2013. We included RAF with (one or more) severity factors including: clinical shock, angina pectoris, ST shift, and very rapid ventricular rate. A blind matching procedure was used to constitute esmolol group (n = 100) and amiodarone group (n = 200), with similar profiles for age, gender, initial blood pressure, heart rate, severity factors, and treatment delay. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients with a ventricular rate control defined as heart frequency ≤ 100 beats/min. More stringent (rhythm control) and more humble indicators (20% heart rate reduction) were analyzed at from 10 to 120 min after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were comparable for both groups: age 66 ± 16 years, male 71%, treatment delay < 1 h 36%, 1-2 h 29%, > 2 h 35%, chest pain 61%, ST shift 62%, ventricular rate 154 ± 26 beats/min, and blood pressure 126/73 mm Hg. The superiority of esmolol was significant at 40 min (64% rate control with esmolol vs. 25% with amiodarone) and for all indicators from 10 to 120 min after treatment onset.

CONCLUSION

In "real life emergency medicine," esmolol is better than amiodarone in the treatment of RAF.

Comparison of Weight-Based Dose vs. Standard Dose Diltiazem in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Presenting to the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence-based recommended weight-based (WB) dosing of diltiazem for the initial treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response (RVR), many providers utilize lower initial doses of diltiazem.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether a low, standard dose of diltiazem is noninferior to WB diltiazem as an initial bolus dose in the treatment of AF with RVR.

METHODS

This retrospective review included patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) of an urban, academic tertiary medical center experiencing AF with RVR from November 2010 to August 2014. Adult patients were categorized by the dose of diltiazem received; 10 mg standard dose or 0.2-0.3 mg/kg WB dose. The primary outcome of successful treatment was defined as a composite of the following parameters 15 min after the initial bolus dose: heart rate (HR) < 100 beats/min, reduction of HR ≥ 20%, or a conversion to normal sinus rhythm.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-six patients who received diltiazem were included for study evaluation (standard dose: n = 255 patients, WB: n = 201 patients). Baseline characteristics, medical history, and medication use before ED presentation were similar between the groups. Significant differences at baseline between the groups included weight and HR at presentation. The primary outcome of successful treatment was attained in 60.8% of the standard dose patients and 68.7% of the WB patients (p = 0.082).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients presenting to the ED, we found that standard dose diltiazem was noninferior to WB dosing in the initial treatment of AF with RVR.

Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia that results from the chaotic depolarization of atrial tissue. AF is the most common sustained cardiac dysrhythmia and the most common dysrhythmia diagnosed in US emergency departments. All patients with AF must have their cardioembolic risk assessed, even if sinus rhythm is restored. Novel oral anticoagulants may be considered instead of vitamin K antagonists for anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular AF.

Safety and efficiency of calcium channel blockers versus beta-blockers for rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and no acute underlying medical illness

OBJECTIVES

Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are not candidates for rhythm control and may require rate control, typically with beta-blocking (BB) or calcium channel blocking (CCB) agents. Although these patients appear to have a low 30-day rate of stroke or death, it is unclear if one class of agent is safer or more effective. The objective was to determine whether BBs or CCBs would have a lower hospital admission rate and to measure 30-day safety outcomes including stroke, death, and emergency department (ED) revisits.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used a database from two urban EDs to identify consecutive patients with ED discharge diagnoses of AF from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2010. Comorbidities, rhythms, management, and immediate outcomes were obtained by manual chart review, and patients with acute underlying medical conditions were excluded by predefined criteria. Patients managed only with rate control agents were eligible for review, and patients receiving BB agents were compared to those receiving CCB agents. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring hospital admission; secondary outcomes included the ED length of stay (LOS), the proportion of patients having adverse events, the proportion of patients returning within 7 or 30 days, and the number of patients having a stroke or dying within 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 259 consecutive patients were enrolled, with 100 receiving CCBs and 159 receiving BBs. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar. Twenty-seven percent of BB patients were admitted, and 31.0% of CCB patients were admitted (difference = 4.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -7.7% to 16.1%), and there were no significant differences in ED LOS, adverse events, or 7- or 30-day ED revisits. One patient who received metoprolol had a stroke, and one patient who received diltiazem died within 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of ED patients with AF and no acute underlying medical illness who underwent rate control only, patients receiving CCBs had similar hospital admission rates to those receiving BBs, while both classes of medications appeared equally safe at 30 days. Both CCBs and BBs are acceptable options for rate control.

Risk factors and consequences of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in patients with ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with rapid ventricular response (RVR) that increases myocardial demand and blood pressure instability. We investigated the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of RVR among patients with ischemic stroke receiving treatment with intravenous (IV) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA). Consecutive patients with AF who received IV rtPA within 3 hours of symptom onset were included. Vascular risk factors, stroke characteristics, and outcome measures were compared between patients who developed RVR and those who did not. Eighty patients with AF (mean age, 79 years; 46% men) who underwent rtPA treatment were studied. Nineteen (24%) of these patients developed RVR and were treated with IV rate-controlling medications. A bimodal pattern of distribution was observed in the occurrence of RVR, with the first peak occurring within 12 hours of stroke onset and the second peak occurring 24-48 hours after onset. Compared with the patients without RVR, those with RVR stayed a median duration of 1.2 days longer in the intensive care unit (P = .048). There were no differences in functional recovery and hemorrhagic outcomes between the patients with RVR and those without RVR. We observed a 16-hour delay in the resumption of antiarrhythmic medications (either at previous or reduced dosage) in the patients who subsequently developed RVR (median time from stroke onset, 29 hours vs 13 hours; P = .040). Our findings suggest that a delay in the resumption of rate-control medications in patients with AF may result in RVR and prolong the use of intensive care resources.