静脉注射地尔硫卓与美托洛尔治疗急诊室快速心室反应房颤的有效性和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析综述》。

Q3 Medicine
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management Pub Date : 2024-09-15 eCollection Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.19102/icrm.2024.15095
Fnu Jaya, Maria Afzal, Fnu Anusha, Muskan Kumari, Ajay Kumar, Saqib Saleem, Aman Kumar, Vishal Bhatia, Rabia Islam, Manoj Kumar, Rameet Kumar, Hamza Islam, Muhammad Ali Muzammil, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri
{"title":"静脉注射地尔硫卓与美托洛尔治疗急诊室快速心室反应房颤的有效性和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析综述》。","authors":"Fnu Jaya, Maria Afzal, Fnu Anusha, Muskan Kumari, Ajay Kumar, Saqib Saleem, Aman Kumar, Vishal Bhatia, Rabia Islam, Manoj Kumar, Rameet Kumar, Hamza Islam, Muhammad Ali Muzammil, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri","doi":"10.19102/icrm.2024.15095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the United States, affecting 2.7-6.1 million people. AF can cause symptoms, but when it triggers a rapid ventricular response (RVR), most patients suffer from decompensation. Therefore, we performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem to identify discrepancies, fill in knowledge gaps, and develop standardized decision-making guidelines for physicians to manage AF with RVR. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify studies for this umbrella review. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, while the quality of the included reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. This study comprehensively analyzed four meta-analyses covering 11 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The analysis showed that IV diltiazem treatment was significantly more successful in rate control for AF with rapid ventricular response (RVR) than IV metoprolol (risk ratio [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.56; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>P</i> = .003). IV diltiazem also led to a significantly greater reduction in ventricular rate (mean difference, -14.55; 95% CI, -16.93 to -12.16; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 72%; <i>P</i> < .00001), particularly at 10 min. The analysis also revealed a significantly increased risk of hypotension associated with treatment with IV diltiazem (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.79; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>P</i> = .002). In conclusion, IV diltiazem therapy achieved better rate control and ventricular rate decrease than metoprolol therapy in AF with RVR. Future clinical trials should compare calcium channel blockers and β-blockers for heart rate control efficacy and safety, considering adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":36299,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management","volume":"15 9","pages":"6022-6036"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11448758/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Diltiazem Versus Metoprolol in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation with Rapid Ventricular Response in the Emergency Department: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Fnu Jaya, Maria Afzal, Fnu Anusha, Muskan Kumari, Ajay Kumar, Saqib Saleem, Aman Kumar, Vishal Bhatia, Rabia Islam, Manoj Kumar, Rameet Kumar, Hamza Islam, Muhammad Ali Muzammil, Satesh Kumar, Mahima Khatri\",\"doi\":\"10.19102/icrm.2024.15095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the United States, affecting 2.7-6.1 million people. AF can cause symptoms, but when it triggers a rapid ventricular response (RVR), most patients suffer from decompensation. Therefore, we performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem to identify discrepancies, fill in knowledge gaps, and develop standardized decision-making guidelines for physicians to manage AF with RVR. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify studies for this umbrella review. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, while the quality of the included reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. This study comprehensively analyzed four meta-analyses covering 11 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The analysis showed that IV diltiazem treatment was significantly more successful in rate control for AF with rapid ventricular response (RVR) than IV metoprolol (risk ratio [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.56; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>P</i> = .003). IV diltiazem also led to a significantly greater reduction in ventricular rate (mean difference, -14.55; 95% CI, -16.93 to -12.16; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 72%; <i>P</i> < .00001), particularly at 10 min. The analysis also revealed a significantly increased risk of hypotension associated with treatment with IV diltiazem (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.79; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 0%; <i>P</i> = .002). In conclusion, IV diltiazem therapy achieved better rate control and ventricular rate decrease than metoprolol therapy in AF with RVR. Future clinical trials should compare calcium channel blockers and β-blockers for heart rate control efficacy and safety, considering adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management\",\"volume\":\"15 9\",\"pages\":\"6022-6036\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11448758/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2024.15095\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2024.15095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心房颤动(房颤)是美国最常见的心律失常,影响 270-610 万人。房颤可引起症状,但当它引发快速心室反应(RVR)时,大多数患者会出现失代偿。因此,我们对比较静脉注射(IV)美托洛尔和地尔硫卓的系统综述和荟萃分析进行了总体回顾,以找出差异,填补知识空白,并为医生制定标准化决策指南,以管理伴有 RVR 的房颤。我们在 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆和 Scopus 中进行了全面检索,以确定本综述的研究内容。采用 "建议评估、制定和评价分级法 "对证据的总体确定性进行了评估,同时采用 AMSTAR 2、Cochrane 协作工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对纳入综述的质量进行了评估。本研究全面分析了四项荟萃分析,涵盖 11 项随机对照试验和 19 项观察性研究。分析结果显示,与静脉注射美托洛尔相比,静脉注射地尔硫卓治疗在快速心室反应(RVR)房颤的心率控制方面明显更成功(风险比 [RR],1.30;95% 置信区间 [CI],1.09-1.56;I 2 = 0%;P = .003)。静脉注射地尔硫卓还能显著降低心室率(平均差,-14.55;95% CI,-16.93 至 -12.16;I 2 = 72%;P < .00001),尤其是在 10 分钟时。分析还显示,静脉注射地尔硫卓治疗会明显增加低血压风险(RR,1.43;95% CI,1.14-1.79;I 2 = 0%;P = .002)。总之,与美托洛尔疗法相比,静脉注射地尔硫卓疗法能更好地控制房颤并降低心室率。未来的临床试验应比较钙通道阻滞剂和β-受体阻滞剂对心率控制的有效性和安全性,并考虑不良事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Diltiazem Versus Metoprolol in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation with Rapid Ventricular Response in the Emergency Department: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the United States, affecting 2.7-6.1 million people. AF can cause symptoms, but when it triggers a rapid ventricular response (RVR), most patients suffer from decompensation. Therefore, we performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem to identify discrepancies, fill in knowledge gaps, and develop standardized decision-making guidelines for physicians to manage AF with RVR. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify studies for this umbrella review. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method, while the quality of the included reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. This study comprehensively analyzed four meta-analyses covering 11 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies. The analysis showed that IV diltiazem treatment was significantly more successful in rate control for AF with rapid ventricular response (RVR) than IV metoprolol (risk ratio [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.56; I 2 = 0%; P = .003). IV diltiazem also led to a significantly greater reduction in ventricular rate (mean difference, -14.55; 95% CI, -16.93 to -12.16; I 2 = 72%; P < .00001), particularly at 10 min. The analysis also revealed a significantly increased risk of hypotension associated with treatment with IV diltiazem (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.79; I 2 = 0%; P = .002). In conclusion, IV diltiazem therapy achieved better rate control and ventricular rate decrease than metoprolol therapy in AF with RVR. Future clinical trials should compare calcium channel blockers and β-blockers for heart rate control efficacy and safety, considering adverse events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信