Esmolol versus verapamil in the acute treatment of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter
Abstract
The effects of esmolol, an ultrashort-acting beta blocker, and verapamil were compared in controlling ventricular response in 45 patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, in a randomized, parallel, open-label study. Patients with either new onset (less than 48 hours, n = 31) or old onset (greater than 48 hours, n = 14) of atrial fibrillation or flutter with rapid ventricular rate were stratified to receive esmolol (n = 21) or verapamil (n = 24). Drug efficacy was measured by ventricular rate reduction and conversion to sinus rhythm. The heart rate declined with esmolol from 139 to 100 beats/min (p less than 0.001) and with verapamil from 142 to 97 beats/min (p less than 0.001). Fifty percent of esmolol-treated patients with new onset of arrhythmias converted to sinus rhythm, whereas only 12% of those who received verapamil converted (p less than 0.03). Mild hypotension was observed in both treatment groups. Esmolol compares favorably with verapamil with respect to both efficacy and safety in acutely decreasing ventricular response during atrial fibrillation or flutter. Moreover, conversion to sinus rhythm is significantly more likely with esmolol.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Rate control is a particularly difficult goal in AFL, and even combination of AV node blocking drugs may fail, making cardioversion necessary.
“This is a particularly difficult goal in AFL and even the combination of AV node blocking drugs (digoxin, b blockers, calcium channel blockers) 135 -137 may fail, making cardioversion to sinus rhythm necessary.”
From European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus document on the management of supraventricular arrhythmias, endorsed by Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia (SOLAECE) (2017) · cites this paper as [136]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 213
- Authors
- Platia, E. V., Michelson, E. L., Porterfield, J. K., & Das, G.
- Affiliations
- MedStar Washington Hospital Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Platia, Edward V.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1989-04
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 925-929
- ISSN
- 0002-9149 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069056417
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
- Keywords
- esmolol, verapamil, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular rate control, conversion to sinus rhythm, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, hypotension
- MeSH terms
- Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Adult, Aged, Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, Blood Pressure, Clinical Trials as Topic, Digoxin, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Propanolamines, Random Allocation, Verapamil, Multicenter Studies as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review