ArticleEmergency (Tehran, Iran)2017
Intravenous Amiodarone versus Digoxin in Atrial Fibrillation Rate Control; a Clinical Trial.
Article in Emergency (Tehran, Iran), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Guideline
- Pooled it
- Cancer: A bioelectric disease?Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatment of rapid ventricular response arterial fibrillation (rapid AF) varies depending on the decision of the in-charge physician, condition of the patient, availability of the drug, and the treatment protocol of the hospital. The present study was designed aiming to compare IV digoxin and amiodarone in controlling the heart rate of patients presenting to emergency department with rapid AF and relative contraindication for first line drug in this regard.
methodIn the present clinical trial, patients presented to the ED with rapid AF and relative contraindication for calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers were treated with either IV amiodarone or IV digoxin and compared regarding success rate and complication using SPSS version 22. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
results84 patients were randomly allocated to either amiodarone or digoxin treatment groups of 42 (53.6% male). The mean age of the studied patients was 61.8 ± 11.14 years (38 - 79). No significant difference was present regarding baseline characteristics. The rate of treatment failure was 21.4% (9 cases) in amiodarone and 59.5% (25 cases) in digoxin groups (p < 0.001). The mean onset of action was 56.66 ± 39.52 minutes (10 - 180) in amiodarone receivers and 135.38 ± 110.41 minutes (25 - 540) in digoxin group (p < 0.001). None of the patients showed any adverse outcomes of hypotension, bradycardia, and rhythm control.
conclusionBased on the findings of the present study, rapid AF patients with relative contraindication for calcium channel blockers or beta-blockers who had received amiodarone experienced both higher (about 2 times) treatment success and a more rapid (about 2.5 times) response compared to those who received IV digoxin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28286836PMC5325898W2555577099What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.