• Sara M Ward, Jennifer Radke, Chara Calhoun, Jeffrey Caporossi, Gregory A Hall, Andrew J Matuskowitz, Erin R Weeda, and Kyle A Weant.
• Department of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, United States; Medical University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Charleston, SC, United States.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov 1; 38 (11): 2271-2276.

PurposeThere 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).MethodsA 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).ResultsA 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).ConclusionIn 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.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

24 keywords...

hide…