Table 1 Studies comparing amiodarone and beta blockers

Walkey et al. (2016)

n = 3174^a (NOAF patients)

Setting: USA

Sepsis

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Serious

Beta blockers (metoprolol, esmolol, atenolol, labetalol, propranolol) versus amiodarone

Not assessed

Not assessed

Hospital: RR^b 0.67 (95% CI 0.59–0.77)

Matsumoto et al. (2015) (conference abstract)

n = 276

n = 116 (amiodarone)

n = 160 (landiolol)

Setting: Japan ICU

Not reported

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Critical

Amiodarone versus landiolol

Not assessed

NS^c

Amiodarone: 50%

Landiolol: 67%

Not assessed

Balik et al. (2017)

n = 234^d

n = 177 (amiodarone)

n = 15 (metoprolol)

Setting: Czech Republic

general ICU

Septic shock

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Critical

Amiodarone versus metoprolol

Not assessed

Amiodarone: 74%

Metoprolol: 92%

ICU: NS

Hospital: NS

Mieure et al. (2011) (conference abstract)

n = 126^e

n = 61 (amiodarone)

n = 24 (metoprolol)

Setting: USA ICU

Not reported

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Critical

Amiodarone versus metoprolol

 < 100 bpm within 24 h from initiation of treatment:

p = 1.00

Amiodarone: 85.2% Metoprolol: 87.5%

p = 0.013

Amiodarone: 21.3%

Metoprolol: 37.5%

Not assessed

Jaffer et al. (2016) (conference abstract)

n = 65

Setting: USA ICU

Septic shock

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Critical

Amiodarone versus beta blockers (drug not specified)

Not assessed

Not assessed

NS

McKenzie Brown et al. (2018)

n = 33^e

n = 6 (amiodarone)

n = 22 (beta blockers)

Setting: USA

surgical ICU

Noncardiac surgical population

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: critical

Amiodarone versus beta blockers (drug not specified)

p = 0.001

Amiodarone: 83%

Beta blockers: 27%^f

p = 0.001

Amiodarone: 83%

Beta blockers: 27%^f

Not compared between treatment groups