title: Clinical decision analysis modeling: short-term control of ventricular response rate in atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter-digoxin versus diltiazem.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To develop a clinical decision model to compare the outcome of therapy with digoxin versus diltiazem for short-term control of ventricular response rate (VRR) in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.
  
  
  METHODS
  Review of data from two studies that examined the percentages of response and frequency of adverse reactions in patients treated with intravenous digoxin or diltiazem to control VRR in atrial fibrillation or flutter. We constructed a clinical decision model and performed sensitivity analysis to determine if the model's predictions could be altered.
  
  
  METHODS
  Large teaching, university hospitals.
  
  
  METHODS
  Adults age 18 years or older treated with intravenous digoxin or intravenous diltiazem for atrial fibrillation or flutter (VRR > or = 120 beats/min). Patients with severe heart failure New York Heart Association class III or IV, a surgical procedure prior to the exacerbation, or an acute myocardial infarction were excluded.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We measured VRR control after 1 and 24 hours of therapy (VRR < 100 beats/min or decrease of > or = 20%) and assessed the likelihood that a patient would suffer an adverse drug reaction. Initial assumptions were that the probability digoxin would achieve VRR control was 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.04-0.20) at 1 hour and 0.70 (95% CI 0.56-0.80) at 24 hours; the probability that diltiazem would achieve VRR control was 0.94 (95% CI 0.82-0.99) at 1 hour and 0.83 (95% CI 0.68-0.94) at 24 hours; and the probability of no serious adverse drug reaction would be 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-0.96) for digoxin and 0.96 (95% CI 0.86-0.98) for diltiazem.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Diltiazem was superior to digoxin with respect to the composite end point score at 1 hour (91.20 vs 17.29) and 24 hours (81.65 vs 66.43). Digoxin was superior to diltiazem at 24 hours only if the VRR was assumed to be at the highest 95% CI limit for digoxin and simultaneously at the lowest 95% CI for diltiazem (74.62 vs 68.63).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Clinical decision analysis suggests that intravenous diltiazem is superior to intravenous digoxin in controlling VRR in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutics, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond 23298.
authors.forename: E R
authors.initials: ER
authors.lastname: Gonzalez
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Ornato
authors.forename: C L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Lawson
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001281:Atrial Fibrillation / Q000188:drug therapy*; D001282:Atrial Flutter / Q000188:drug therapy*; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D004077:Digoxin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004110:Diltiazem / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D005260:Female; D006339:Heart Rate / Q000187:drug effects; D006801:Humans; D007262:Infusions, Intravenous; D008297:Male; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D016276:Ventricular Function / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000502:physiology
chemical_list: D004077:Digoxin; D004110:Diltiazem