Intravenous diltiazem for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter and moderate to severe congestive heart failure

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(94)90580-0Get rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous diltiazem in the treatment of 37 patients with rapid (ventricular rate, mean ± SD 142 ± 17 beats/min) atrial fibrillation or flutter and moderate to severe congestive heart failure (ejection fraction, mean ± SD 36 ± 14%; New York Heart Association class III [23 patients], class IV [14 patients]). During the double-blind portion of the study, patients received either intravenous diltiazem, 0.25 mg/kg over 2 minutes, or placebo followed 15 minutes later by diltiazem or placebo, 0.35 mg/kg over 2 minutes, if the first dose was tolerated but ineffective. Placebo nonresponders were given open-label intravenous diltiazem in a similar fashion as in the double-blind portion of the study. In the double-blind part of the study, 21 (18 with 0.25 mg/kg, 3 with an additional 0.35 mg/kg) of the 22 patients (95%) responded to diltiazem, and 0 of 15 patients (0%) responded to placebo (p < 0.001). All 15 patients (13 with 0.25 mg/kg and 2 with an additional 0.35 mg/kg) who received placebo during the double-blind period had a therapeutic response to diltiazem during open-label therapy. Overall, 36 of 37 patients (97%) had a therapeutic response to intravenous diltiazem. Heart rate response to diltiazem after the 2-minute bolus infusions consisted of a ≥20% decrease in heart rate from baseline in 36 patients; in addition, 17 patients also had heart rates decreased to <100 beats/min, whereas no patient had conversion to sinus rhythm. The median time to response from the beginning of the 2-minute bolus dose of diltiazem was about 5 minutes. Hypotension was the most common adverse event occurring in 4 of the 37 patients (11%). No patient had an exacerbation of congestive heart failure due to diltiazem. In conclusion, intravenous diltiazem is rapid, safe, and effective in acutely lowering a rapid ventricular rate in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter and moderate to severe congestive heart failure.

References (30)

  • EV Platia et al.

    Esmolol versus verapamil in the acute treatment of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

    Am J Cardiol

    (1989)
  • PE Fenster et al.

    Conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm by acute intravenous procainamide infusion

    Am Heart J

    (1983)
  • VC Dias et al.

    Intravenous diltiazem in patients with atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter: a pilot dose-response study

    Drug Invest

    (1991)
  • HL Waxman et al.

    Verapamil for control of ventricular rate in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation or flutter: a double-blind randomized cross-over study

    Ann Intern Med

    (1981)
  • E Rowland et al.

    The comparative effects of diltiazem and verapamil on atrioventricular conduction and atrioventricular reentry tachycardia

    Circ Res

    (1983)
  • Cited by (90)

    • Metoprolol vs. diltiazem in the acute management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

      2019, American Journal of Emergency Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      These patients were on therapy for 12 to 52 months, with a mean duration of 25 months [6]. Prior studies, as well as this study; indicate diltiazem is safe in the acute setting [12,16-18]. Both metoprolol and diltiazem act as negative inotropes acutely but beta-blockers provide long term neurohormonal benefits [19].

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

      2016, Journal of Emergency Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Hypotension was evaluated as a side effect of the dosing regimens. Based on previous studies, we assumed the success rate of a single bolus dose of diltiazem would be 75% (12,14−16,19). A sample size of 292 patients in both groups (a total sample of 584) was calculated to afford 80% power to detect a 10% noninferiority margin for successful treatment between the groups.

    • Atrial Fibrillation

      2013, Hospital Medicine Clinics
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This study was supported by a grant from Marion Merrell Dow Inc., Kansas City, Missouri.

    View full text