Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Noncardiac, Nonthoracic Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation

Heather A. Personett, Dustin L. Smoot, Joanna L. Stollings, Mark D Sawyer, Lance J. Oyen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Little guidance exists on effective management of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following noncardiac, nonthoracic (NCNT) surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify whether a difference exists between intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem when used to achieve hemodynamically stable rate control in POAF following NCNT surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined critically ill adult surgical patients experiencing POAF with rapid ventricular response. Inclusion in the metoprolol or diltiazem treatment group was determined by the initial rate control agent chosen by the prescriber. The primary end point was hemodynamically stable rate control, defined by heart rate (HR) <110 beats/min and blood pressure >90 mm Hg, maintained for 6 hours. Main Results: Patients on metoprolol (n = 66) and diltiazem (n = 55) were similar in age, comorbidities, surgical procedure distribution, acuity of illness, and home rate and rhythm control medications continued during hospitalization; 76% of diltiazem-treated patients achieved hemodynamically stable rate control, compared with only 53% of those receiving metoprolol (P =.005). Safety end points were similar between groups, including the portion requiring a new vasopressor or fluid bolus for hemodynamic support. Conclusions: In NCNT surgery, patients with POAF, IV diltiazem more effectively controlled HR and hemodynamics compared with metoprolol. Results warrant further research into optimal medical management of POAF in this population using these 2 agents.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-319
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of Pharmacotherapy
Volume48
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2014

Fingerprint

Metoprolol
Diltiazem
Atrial Fibrillation
Heart Rate
Hemodynamics
Critical Illness
Comorbidity
Hospitalization
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Safety
Research
Population

Keywords

  • arrhythmia
  • critical care
  • surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Noncardiac, Nonthoracic Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation. / Personett, Heather A.; Smoot, Dustin L.; Stollings, Joanna L.; Sawyer, Mark D; Oyen, Lance J.

In: Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Vol. 48, No. 3, 03.2014, p. 314-319.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Personett, Heather A. ; Smoot, Dustin L. ; Stollings, Joanna L. ; Sawyer, Mark D ; Oyen, Lance J. / Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Noncardiac, Nonthoracic Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation. In: Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2014 ; Vol. 48, No. 3. pp. 314-319.
@article{b72c30734ffb4e7db758c3bdcb449d03,
title = "Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Noncardiac, Nonthoracic Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation",
abstract = "Background: Little guidance exists on effective management of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following noncardiac, nonthoracic (NCNT) surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify whether a difference exists between intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem when used to achieve hemodynamically stable rate control in POAF following NCNT surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined critically ill adult surgical patients experiencing POAF with rapid ventricular response. Inclusion in the metoprolol or diltiazem treatment group was determined by the initial rate control agent chosen by the prescriber. The primary end point was hemodynamically stable rate control, defined by heart rate (HR) <110 beats/min and blood pressure >90 mm Hg, maintained for 6 hours. Main Results: Patients on metoprolol (n = 66) and diltiazem (n = 55) were similar in age, comorbidities, surgical procedure distribution, acuity of illness, and home rate and rhythm control medications continued during hospitalization; 76{\%} of diltiazem-treated patients achieved hemodynamically stable rate control, compared with only 53{\%} of those receiving metoprolol (P =.005). Safety end points were similar between groups, including the portion requiring a new vasopressor or fluid bolus for hemodynamic support. Conclusions: In NCNT surgery, patients with POAF, IV diltiazem more effectively controlled HR and hemodynamics compared with metoprolol. Results warrant further research into optimal medical management of POAF in this population using these 2 agents.",
keywords = "arrhythmia, critical care, surgery",
author = "Personett, {Heather A.} and Smoot, {Dustin L.} and Stollings, {Joanna L.} and Sawyer, {Mark D} and Oyen, {Lance J.}",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1177/1060028013512473",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "314--319",
journal = "Annals of Pharmacotherapy",
issn = "1060-0280",
publisher = "Harvey Whitney Books Company",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intravenous Metoprolol Versus Diltiazem for Rate Control in Noncardiac, Nonthoracic Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation

AU - Personett, Heather A.

AU - Smoot, Dustin L.

AU - Stollings, Joanna L.

AU - Sawyer, Mark D

AU - Oyen, Lance J.

PY - 2014/3

Y1 - 2014/3

N2 - Background: Little guidance exists on effective management of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following noncardiac, nonthoracic (NCNT) surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify whether a difference exists between intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem when used to achieve hemodynamically stable rate control in POAF following NCNT surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined critically ill adult surgical patients experiencing POAF with rapid ventricular response. Inclusion in the metoprolol or diltiazem treatment group was determined by the initial rate control agent chosen by the prescriber. The primary end point was hemodynamically stable rate control, defined by heart rate (HR) <110 beats/min and blood pressure >90 mm Hg, maintained for 6 hours. Main Results: Patients on metoprolol (n = 66) and diltiazem (n = 55) were similar in age, comorbidities, surgical procedure distribution, acuity of illness, and home rate and rhythm control medications continued during hospitalization; 76% of diltiazem-treated patients achieved hemodynamically stable rate control, compared with only 53% of those receiving metoprolol (P =.005). Safety end points were similar between groups, including the portion requiring a new vasopressor or fluid bolus for hemodynamic support. Conclusions: In NCNT surgery, patients with POAF, IV diltiazem more effectively controlled HR and hemodynamics compared with metoprolol. Results warrant further research into optimal medical management of POAF in this population using these 2 agents.

AB - Background: Little guidance exists on effective management of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following noncardiac, nonthoracic (NCNT) surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify whether a difference exists between intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem when used to achieve hemodynamically stable rate control in POAF following NCNT surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined critically ill adult surgical patients experiencing POAF with rapid ventricular response. Inclusion in the metoprolol or diltiazem treatment group was determined by the initial rate control agent chosen by the prescriber. The primary end point was hemodynamically stable rate control, defined by heart rate (HR) <110 beats/min and blood pressure >90 mm Hg, maintained for 6 hours. Main Results: Patients on metoprolol (n = 66) and diltiazem (n = 55) were similar in age, comorbidities, surgical procedure distribution, acuity of illness, and home rate and rhythm control medications continued during hospitalization; 76% of diltiazem-treated patients achieved hemodynamically stable rate control, compared with only 53% of those receiving metoprolol (P =.005). Safety end points were similar between groups, including the portion requiring a new vasopressor or fluid bolus for hemodynamic support. Conclusions: In NCNT surgery, patients with POAF, IV diltiazem more effectively controlled HR and hemodynamics compared with metoprolol. Results warrant further research into optimal medical management of POAF in this population using these 2 agents.

KW - arrhythmia

KW - critical care

KW - surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896846247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896846247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1060028013512473

DO - 10.1177/1060028013512473

M3 - Article

C2 - 24408816

AN - SCOPUS:84896846247

VL - 48

SP - 314

EP - 319

JO - Annals of Pharmacotherapy

JF - Annals of Pharmacotherapy

SN - 1060-0280

IS - 3

ER -