Publication:
Amiodarone vs. digoxin for ventricular-rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation at the emergency department

dc.contributor.authorC. Yuksenen_US
dc.contributor.authorP. Sricharoenen_US
dc.contributor.authorC. Jenpanitpongen_US
dc.contributor.authorK. Satainrumen_US
dc.contributor.authorT. Sukkhoen_US
dc.contributor.authorK. Sawanyawisuthen_US
dc.contributor.authorY. Sittichanbunchaen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T05:06:27Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T05:06:27Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF THAILAND. Objective: To compare an efficacy of amiodarone and digoxin in terms of rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response at the emergency department. Materials and Methods: The present study was a descriptive, retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital. The inclusion criteria were age over 18 years, presenting at the emergency room with AF and heart rate over 120 beats/min, and systolic blood pressure over 90 mmHg. There were four clinical outcomes examined including successful heart rate control, heart rate difference, treatment duration, and vital signs after treatment. Results: During the study period, there were 147 patients who met the study criteria. Of those, 85 (57.83%) received amiodarone treatment. Regarding treatment outcomes, the amiodarone group had a significantly higher proportion of patients who achieved successful heart-rate control rate than the digoxin group (89.41% vs. 51.61%; p<0.001). Patients who received amiodarone were 1.4-times more likely to achieve a normal heart rate than digoxin (95% CI = 1.2 to 1.7 times, p-value <0.001). The two groups were comparable in terms of the other outcomes. Conclusion: Intravenous amiodarone was able to control ventricular rate in AF patients better than digoxin. In settings in which access to intravenous antiarrhythmic agents is limited, amiodarone may be a potential alternative agent.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.103, No.1 (2020), 40-43en_US
dc.identifier.issn01252208en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85079045035en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/53861
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85079045035&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleAmiodarone vs. digoxin for ventricular-rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation at the emergency departmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85079045035&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections