Ward Sara M, Radke Jennifer, Calhoun Chara, Caporossi Jeffrey, Hall Gregory A, Matuskowitz Andrew J, Weeda Erin R, Weant Kyle A
Department of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, United States; Medical University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Charleston, SC, United States.
Medical University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Charleston, SC, United States.
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov;38(11):2271-2276. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.09.020. Epub 2019 Nov 15.
There is conflicting evidence to support the superiority of weight-based (WB) dosing of intravenous (IV) diltiazem over non-weight-based (NWB) dosing strategies in the management of atrial fibrillation (AFib) with rapid ventricular response (RVR).
A retrospective review evaluated patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) in AFib with RVR and receiving IV diltiazem from 2015 to 2018. Those receiving a NWB dose were compared with those receiving a WB dose based on actual body weight (ABW). Secondary analyses evaluated safety profiles of the regimens and compared response in groups defined by ABW or ideal body weight (IBW).
A total of 371 patients were included in the analysis. No significant difference was observed in achieving a therapeutic response (66.5% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.18) or adverse events between the groups. Patients receiving a WB dose were significantly more likely to have a HR < 100 bpm than those receiving a NWB dose (40.9% vs. 53.5%, p = 0.01). When groups were defined by IBW, WB dosing was associated with a significantly higher incidence of achieving a therapeutic response (62.7% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.02).
In patients presenting with AF with RVR, there was no significant difference in achieving a therapeutic response between the two strategies. A WB dosing approach did result in a greater proportion of patients with a HR < 100 bpm. The utilization of IBW for WB dosing may result in an increased achievement of a therapeutic response.
在伴有快速心室率(RVR)的心房颤动(AFib)管理中,关于静脉注射(IV)地尔硫䓬基于体重(WB)给药优于非基于体重(NWB)给药策略的证据存在冲突。
一项回顾性研究评估了2015年至2018年因AFib伴RVR到急诊科(ED)就诊并接受IV地尔硫䓬治疗的患者。将接受NWB剂量的患者与基于实际体重(ABW)接受WB剂量的患者进行比较。二次分析评估了治疗方案的安全性,并比较了根据ABW或理想体重(IBW)定义的组间反应。
共有371例患者纳入分析。两组在实现治疗反应(66.5%对73.1%,p = 0.18)或不良事件方面未观察到显著差异。接受WB剂量的患者心率<100次/分的可能性显著高于接受NWB剂量的患者(40.9%对53.5%,p = 0.01)。当根据IBW定义组时,WB给药与实现治疗反应的发生率显著更高相关(62.7%对74.3%,p = 0.02)。
在伴有RVR的AF患者中,两种策略在实现治疗反应方面无显著差异。WB给药方法确实使心率<100次/分的患者比例更高。在WB给药中使用IBW可能会提高治疗反应的达成率。