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 |