• Yehonatan Sherf, Dekel Avital, Shahar Geva Robinson, Natan Arotsker, Liat Waldman Radinsky, Efrat Chen Hendel, Dana Braiman, Ahab Hayadri, Dikla Akselrod, Tal Schlaeffer-Yosef, Yasmeen Abu Fraiha, Ronen Toledano, and Nimrod Maimon.
• Department of Internal Medicine A, Padeh Medical Center, Poriya, Israel.
• Isr Med Assoc J. 2022 Nov 1; 24 (11): 752756752-756.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia. Previous studies showed that rhythm and rate control strategies are associated with similar rates of mortality and serious morbidity. Beta blockers (BB) and calcium channel blockers (CCB) are commonly used and the selection between these two medications depends on personal preference.ObjectivesTo compare real-time capability of BB and CCB for the treatment of rapid AF and to estimate their efficacy in reducing hospitalization duration.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 306 patients hospitalized at Soroka Hospital during a 5-year period with new onset AF who were treated by a rate control strategy.ResultsA significant difference between the two groups regarding the time (in hours) until reaching a target heart rate below 100 beats/min was observed. BB were found to decrease the heart rate after 5 hours (range 4-14) vs. 8 hours (range 4-18) for CCB (P = 0.009). Patients diagnosed with new-onset AF exhibited shorter duration of hospitalization after therapy with BB compared to CCB (median 72 vs. 96 hours, P = 0.012) in the subgroup of patients discharged with persistent AF. There was no significant difference between CCB and BB regarding the duration of hospitalization (P = 0.4) in the total patient population.ConclusionsBB therapy is more potent for rapid reduction of the heart rate compared to CCB and demonstrated better efficiency in shortening the duration of hospitalization in a subgroup of patients. This finding should be reevaluated in subsequent research.

10 keywords...

hide…