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.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; emergency medicine; esmolol.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.