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

• Published in: The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management (Print) Vol. 15; no. 9; pp. 6022 - 6036
• Main Authors: Jaya, Fnu, Afzal, Maria, Anusha, Fnu, Kumari, Muskan, Kumar, Ajay, Saleem, Saqib, Kumar, Aman, Bhatia, Vishal, Islam, Rabia, Kumar, Manoj, Kumar, Rameet, Islam, Hamza, Muzammil, Muhammad Ali, Kumar, Satesh, Khatri, Mahima
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States MediaSphere Medical 01.09.2024
• Subjects: Review; atrial fibrillation; intravenous diltiazem; rapid ventricular response; Acute rate control; comparison; metoprolol
• ISSN: 2156-3977; 2156-3993
• DOI: 10.19102/icrm.2024.15095

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; = 0%; = .003). IV diltiazem also led to a significantly greater reduction in ventricular rate (mean difference, -14.55; 95% CI, -16.93 to -12.16; = 72%; < .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; = 0%; = .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.