MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412786244 · doi:10.38124/ijisrt/25jul1494

Efficacy, Safety, and Feasibility of Verapamil in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Emergency Services with Limited Resources: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4412786244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Oraa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerapamilAtrial fibrillationMedicineBusinessMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation represents one of the most frequent arrhythmias in emergency services, particularly in settings with limited resources where clear protocols and accessible drugs are required. Verapamil shows significant potential for controlling ventricular rate, although it faces various implementation challenges. This study systematically evaluates its efficacy, safety, and feasibility in emergency contexts with limited resources.  Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Google Scholar (January 2000-June 2024), including observational studies, clinical trials, and economic evaluations. Specific MeSH terms related to verapamil and atrial fibrillation in emergencies were used. Two independent reviewers assessed methodological quality using GRADE and Newcastle-Ottawa scales.  Results: Of 487 articles identified, 42 met inclusion criteria. Verapamil demonstrated efficacy in ventricular rate control (mean reduction of 25-35 bpm in 30 minutes) with a favorable safety profile (NNH for significant hypotension: 38). Structured protocols reduced hospital admissions (18%, p<0.01) and need for cardioversions (22%, p<0.005) without requiring additional personnel. Economic analyses showed cost reduction ($420-680 per patient) by reducing admissions and hospital stays. "Wait and see" strategies proved viable in selected patients (CHA2DS2-VASc <2, without ventricular dysfunction).  Discussion: The findings demonstrate that verapamil, when implemented within structured protocols, represents an effective alternative for ventricular rate control in atrial fibrillation in emergency services. Its favorable safety profile, with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 38 for significant hypotension, suggests a manageable risk in controlled settings. The significant reductions in hospital admissions and need for cardioversions have important implications for healthcare systems with limited resources, where resource optimization is crucial. Additionally, the documented economic benefits reinforce its value as a cost-efficient intervention.  Conclusions: Verapamil constitutes an effective, safe, and cost-efficient option for the management of atrial fibrillation in emergency settings with limited resources when implemented within structured protocols. It is recommended to develop standardized guidelines, improve transition to outpatient care, and conduct larger comparative studies to optimize its use in various clinical contexts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→