The American journal of emergency medicine · 2019
Weight-based versus non-weight-based diltiazem dosing in the setting of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ward Sara M, Radke Jennifer, Calhoun Chara, Caporossi Jeffrey, Hall Gregory A, Matuskowitz Andrew J, Weeda Erin R, Weant Kyle A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: 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).
METHODS: 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).
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSION: 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.
METHODS: 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).
RESULTS: 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).
CONCLUSION: 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.