ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Metoprolol and Diltiazem in Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Rate Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the association between intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol in rate control for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with rapid ventricular rate, focusing on rate control efficacy and hemodynamic adverse events. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, electronic searches were conducted in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until February 20, 2024. The primary outcome was achieving ventricular rate control < 110/min. Secondary outcomes included new hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) and bradycardia (heart rate < 60/min). Nineteen studies (three randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed intravenous metoprolol resulted in a 39% lower rate control attainment compared to diltiazem (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.84; p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in bradycardia (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.22; p = 0.13) or hypotension risk (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.61; p = 0.72) between the two groups. Intravenous diltiazem demonstrated superior rate control efficacy compared to metoprolol in AF patients with rapid ventricular rate. However, no significant differences were observed in safety outcomes, namely, bradycardia and hypotension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.