Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2025

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Intravenous Diltiazem Versus Metoprolol in Acute Rate Control of Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter and Rapid Ventricular
Alexander Bolton1, Bishow Paudel2, Mehul Adhaduk2
1Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. arb367@gmail.com.
Background:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and/or atrial flutter (AFL) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is a condition that often requires urgent treatment. Although guidelines have recommendations regarding chronic rate control therapy, recommendations on the best choice for acute heart rate (HR) control in RVR are unclear.
Methods:
A systematic search across multiple databases was performed for studies evaluating the outcome of HR control (defined as HR less than 110 bpm and/or 20% decrease from baseline HR). Included studies evaluated AF and/or AFL with RVR in a hospital setting, with direct comparison between intravenous (IV) diltiazem and metoprolol and excluded cardiac surgery and catheter ablation patients. Hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg) was measured as a secondary outcome. Two authors performed full-text article review and extracted data, with a third author mediating disagreements. Random effects models utilizing inverse variance weighting were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test.
Results:
A total of 563 unique titles were identified through the systematic search, of which 16 studies (7 randomized and 9 observational) were included. In our primary analysis of HR control by study type, IV diltiazem was found to be more effective than IV metoprolol for HR control in randomized trials (OR 4.75, 95% CI 2.50-9.04 with I2 = 14%); however, this was not found for observational studies (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.89-1.80 with I2 = 55%). In an analysis of observational studies, there were no significant differences between the two drugs in odds of hypotension (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.51-2.45 with I2 = 18%).
Conclusion:
While there was a trend toward improved HR control with IV diltiazem compared with IV metoprolol in randomized trials, this was not seen in observational studies, and there was no observed difference in hypotension between the two drugs.
More Related Videos
12:45Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
28:13Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Related Concept Videos
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class IV Agents as Calcium Channel Blockers
Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker, inhibits calcium movement across myocardial cell membranes and vascular smooth muscle. This results in the dilation of coronary and...
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class II Agents as β-Adrenergic Blockers
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class III Agents as Potassium Channel Blockers
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management