The Safety and Efficacy of Verapamil Versus Diltiazem Continuous Infusion for Acute Rate Control of Atrial Fibrillation at an Academic Medical Center

Abstract

Purpose Due to critical shortages of intravenous diltiazem in 2018, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC) adopted intravenous verapamil as an alternative. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the use of intravenous verapamil infusions for rate control in the acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of intravenous verapamil as compared with diltiazem for the acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias. Methods This retrospective, case-control study compared patients who received verapamil infusions between June 1 and September 30, 2018, with patients who received diltiazem infusions between June 1 and September 30, 2017, at OSUWMC. Patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and the presence of comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (≤40%). Results A total of 73 patients who received at least 1 verapamil infusion and 73 patients who received at least 1 diltiazem infusion met inclusion criteria. The composite need for inotrope or vasopressor was similar for both groups (5% with verapamil versus 4% with diltiazem, P = .999). The rate of hypotension was similar between groups (37% versus 33% experiencing a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, P = .603, and 27% versus 23% experiencing a mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg, P = .704), as was the rate of bradycardia (19% versus 18%, P = .831). The efficacy outcomes of this study were similar for both groups, with 89% of patients in the verapamil group and 90% of patients in the diltiazem group achieving a heart rate less than 110 beats per minute ( P = .785). Conclusion Intravenous verapamil and diltiazem infusions had similar safety and efficacy outcomes when used for acute treatment of atrial arrhythmias in the institutional setting.