• A Brad Hall, Kayla Wilson, Steven Guggino, and Fred Blind.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Lakeland Regional Health, Lakeland, FL, USA. Electronic address: Brad.hall@mylrh.org.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Oct 1; 84: 151715-17.

Study ObjectiveIntravenous diltiazem has experienced numerous supply shortages over the past few years. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a traditional diltiazem intravenous bolus and continuous infusion protocol to a diltiazem intravenous bolus and oral maintenance protocol for acute rate control in the emergency department.MethodsPatients who received intravenous diltiazem in the emergency department between January 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019 were screened. Patients were included if they received the diltiazem intravenous bolus and continuous infusion protocol (IV + infusion group) or the hybrid diltiazem intravenous bolus and oral maintenance protocol (IV + PO group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with rate control, without need for additional rate control agents or additional boluses during the maintenance phase.ResultsA total of 106 patients were matched with 53 patients in each group. For the primary outcome of rate control at four hours, 62.3% of patients in the intravenous bolus + infusion group versus 75.5% of patients in the IV bolus + PO group (p = 0.142) achieved rate control. There was no difference in rates of hypotension or bradycardia between groups.ConclusionResults of this study demonstrated no difference in acute rate control when using a hybrid IV and oral diltiazem protocol, compared to a traditional IV bolus and infusion strategy. This information supports the further use of a hybrid diltiazem IV and oral protocol, which provides increased flexibility during shortages of either medication.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

24 keywords...

hide…