Rate Control With Beta‐blockers Versus Calcium Channel Blockers in the Emergency Setting: Predictors of Medication Class Choice and Associated Hospitalization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Rate control is an important component of the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Previous studies of emergency department (ED) rate control have been limited by relatively small sample sizes. We examined the use of beta-blockers (BBs) versus nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in ED patients from 24 sites and the associated hospital admission rates. METHODS: In this preplanned substudy, we examined chart data on AF patients who visited one of 24 hospital EDs in Ontario, Canada, between April 2008 and March 2009. We describe the proportion of patients who received either a BB or a CCB, had a heart rate < 110 beats/min 2 hours later, and had any complications. We used hierarchical logistic regression modeling to determine the predictors of BB versus CCB use and to assess the between-hospital variation in use of BBs versus CCBs. Solely in patients who had no rhythm control attempts, we examined the difference in the probability of hospital admission after propensity score matching patients by medication class. RESULTS: Of the 1,639 patients who received either a BB (n = 429) or a CCB (n = 1,210), 70.9% of the patients who received a BB had successful rate control versus 66.1% for a CCB. Complications were rare (2.4%), and the large majority were hypotension (2.0%). In adjusted analyses, predictors of receiving a BB (compared to a CCB) included already being on a BB, being sent in from a doctor's office, or being seen at a teaching hospital. In contrast, patients with evidence of heart failure, prior use of a CCB, a higher presenting heart rate, or a successful pharmacologic cardioversion (vs. no attempt) or who were seen at the highest AF volume EDs were significantly less likely to receive a BB, compared to a CCB. Systematic between-hospital differences accounted for 8% of the variation in BB versus CCB use. Hospital characteristics accounted for the large majority of that variation: after accounting for patient characteristics the between-hospital variation decreased by a relative 2.8%. By further adjusting for hospital characteristics, it decreased by a relative 74.7%. Among propensity score-matched patients with no rhythm control attempts, more CCB patients were admitted (51.6%) compared to BB patients (40.0%; difference of 11.6%; 95% confidence interval = 7.9%-16.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of 24 EDs, CCBs were used more frequently for rate control than BBs, and complications were rare and easily managed using both agents. Variation between hospitals in BB versus CCB use was predominantly due to hospital characteristics such as teaching status and AF volumes, rather than different case mix. Among patients who did not receive attempts at rhythm control, use of a BB for rate control was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».