Skip to main content

Table 3 Studies comparing beta blockers and calcium channel blockers

From: Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review

Authors

Sample size and setting

Primary diagnosis

Study design and risk of bias

Intervention

Rate control outcome

Rhythm control outcome

Mortality outcome

Balser et al. (1998)

n = 55

n = 28 (esmolol)

n = 27 (diltiazem)

Setting: USA ICU

Noncardiac surgical population

RCTa

Risk of bias: Some concerns

Esmolol versus diltiazem

Not assessed

Within 2 h: NSb

Esmolol: 59%

Diltiazem: 27%

Hospital: NS

Esmolol: 31%

Diltiazem: 38%

Walkey et al. (2016)

n = 3,174c (NOAF patients)

Setting: USA

Sepsis

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Serious

Beta blockers (metoprolol, esmolol, atenolol, labetalol, propranolol) versus calcium channel blockers (diltiazem, verapamil)

Not assessed

Not assessed

Hospital: RRd 0.99 (95% CI: 0.86–1.15)

Jaffer et al. (2016) (conference abstract)

n = 65

Setting: USA ICU

Septic shock

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: Critical

Beta blockers versus calcium channel blockers (drugs not specified)

Not assessed

Not assessed

NS

McKenzie Brown et al. (2018)

n = 33e

n = 22 (beta blockers)

n = 2 (calcium channel blockers)

Setting: USA Surgical ICU

Noncardiac surgical population

Retrospective comparative

Risk of bias: critical

Beta blockers versus calcium channel blockers (drugs not specified)

Beta blockers: 27%

Calcium channel blockers: 50%

Beta blockers: 27%

Calcium channel blockers: 50%

Not assessed

  1. Randomised controlled trial
  2. Statistically not significant
  3. Includes amiodarone and digoxin groups
  4. Relative risk
  5. Includes amiodarone group and no treatment groups