Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartindale, Jennifer L
dc.contributor.authordeSouza, Ian S
dc.contributor.authorSilverberg, Mark
dc.contributor.authorFreedman, Joseph
dc.contributor.authorSinert, Richard
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-27T17:42:43Z
dc.date.available2023-01-27T17:42:43Z
dc.identifier.citationMartindale JL, deSouza IS, Silverberg M, Freedman J, Sinert R. β-Blockers versus calcium channel blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: a systematic review. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;22(3):150-4. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000227. PMID: 25564459.en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1473-5695
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000227
dc.identifier.pmid25564459
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12648/8155
dc.description.abstractThis is a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy of calcium channel blockers to β-blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department setting. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry were searched. Relative risk (95% confidence interval) was calculated between drugs and methodological quality of included studies was evaluated. Of the 1003 studies yielded by our initial search, two met inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. These were randomized double-blinded studies (n=92) comparing intravenous diltiazem with intravenous metoprolol. The combined relative risk of acute rate control by diltiazem versus metoprolol was 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.2-2.6). On the basis of the paucity of available evidence, diltiazem may be more effective than metoprolol in achieving rapid rate control, but high-quality randomized studies are needed.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://journals.lww.com/euro-emergencymed/Abstract/2015/06000/__Blockers_versus_calcium_channel_blockers_for.2.aspxen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.titleβ-Blockers versus calcium channel blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: a systematic review.en_US
dc.typeArticle/Reviewen_US
dc.source.journaltitleEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.source.volume22
dc.source.issue3
dc.source.beginpage150
dc.source.endpage4
dc.source.countryEngland
dc.description.versionAMen_US
refterms.dateFOA2023-01-27T17:42:43Z
html.description.abstractThis is a systematic review of the literature to compare the efficacy of calcium channel blockers to β-blockers for acute rate control of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in the emergency department setting. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Registry were searched. Relative risk (95% confidence interval) was calculated between drugs and methodological quality of included studies was evaluated. Of the 1003 studies yielded by our initial search, two met inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. These were randomized double-blinded studies (n=92) comparing intravenous diltiazem with intravenous metoprolol. The combined relative risk of acute rate control by diltiazem versus metoprolol was 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.2-2.6). On the basis of the paucity of available evidence, diltiazem may be more effective than metoprolol in achieving rapid rate control, but high-quality randomized studies are needed.
dc.description.institutionSUNY Downstateen_US
dc.description.departmentEmergency Medicineen_US
dc.description.degreelevelN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.journalEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
SR Beta-Blockers versus Calcium ...
Size:
144.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International