Heart Rate and Rhythm DisordersPhase 4DiMENCT01914926
Comparison of Diltiazem and Metoprolol in the Management of Acute Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter
A Phase 4 study testing Metoprolol and Diltiazem in people with Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders, run by Antonios Likourezos at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained, clinically significant dysrhythmia encountered in the emergency department (ED) and the most common dysrhythmia treated by emergency physicians. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders
- What is being tested?
- Metoprolol and Diltiazem
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jun 2009to Nov 2010
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Eligible patients had to have a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter with a ventricular rate of greater than or equal to 120 beats per minute and a systolic blood pressure of greater than or equal to 90 mmHg.
Who cannot join
- Patients were excluded if they had any of the following:
- a systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, ventricular rate greater than or equal to 220 beats per minute,
- QRS >0.100 seconds, 2nd or 3rd degree atrioventricular (AV) block,
- temperature >38.0 ˚C,
- acute ST elevation myocardial infarction,
- known history of New York Heart Association Class IV heart failure or
Show all 14Show fewer
- active wheezing with a history of bronchial asthma or COPD.
- In addition, patients were excluded if there was:
- prehospital administration of diltiazem or any other AV nodal blockading agent,
- a history of cocaine or methamphetamine use in the previous 24 hours prior to arrival,
- a history of allergic reaction to diltiazem or metoprolol,
- a history of sick sinus or pre-excitation syndromes,
- a history of anemia with hemoglobin <11.0 g/dl,
- pregnancy or breastfeeding.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: DiME Study: Comparison of Diltiazem and Metoprolol in the Management of Acute Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter With Rapid Ventricular Response: A Prospective Randomized and Double-Blinded Non-Inferiority Trial of Safety and Efficacy
Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained, clinically significant dysrhythmia encountered in the emergency department (ED) and the most common dysrhythmia treated by emergency physicians. Atrial flutter is less common than atrial fibrillation but its management in the ED is very similar, and the majority of patients with atrial flutter also have atrial fibrillation. Symptomatic relief and ventricular rate control are generally the primary therapeutic objectives in the ED management of acute atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF). The need for swift, appropriate action by the emergency physician is highlighted by the fact that up to 18% of patients with AFF develop potentially life-threatening complications such as congestive heart failure, hypotension, ventricular ectopy, respiratory failure, angina and myocardial infarction.
Both beta-blocking agents and calcium channel blockers are commonly used to treat AFF in the ED. Metoprolol is the most commonly used beta-blocker; and diltiazem is the most frequently used calcium channel antagonist.[8] Diltiazem was released by the FDA for treatment of AFF in 1992. Shreck et al. were the first to demonstrate both the efficacy of diltiazem in the ED management of AFF with rapid rate and its clear superiority over the previously most commonly used pharmacologic agent, digoxin.
To date, only one prospective, randomized trial has compared the effectiveness of a calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) with a beta-blocker (metoprolol) for rate control of AFF in the ED. Despite the relatively small sample size (n=20 in each group) the authors concluded that both pharmacologic agents were similarly effective. In order to test this finding, the investigators conducted a prospective comparison of metoprolol and diltiazem for the management of patients presenting to the ED with AFF with rapid ventricular rate.
Read the detailed description
We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the effectiveness of intravenous metoprolol with that of diltiazem in achieving rate control in adult ED patients with rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter. Approval of the study was obtained from our hospital's institutional review board. All enrolled patients provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization documentation.
This study was set in the adult ED of Maimonides Medical Center, an urban teaching hospital in Brooklyn, NY with an annual ED census of more than 120,00 patients. A convenience sample of adult patients age 18 or older presenting with a supraventricular tachydysrhythmia were evaluated for enrollment. Eligible patients had to have a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter with a ventricular rate of greater than or equal to 120 beats per minute. Data collected included demographics, medical history, vital signs and electrocardiogram findings. All patients were immediately evaluated by the treating physician utilizing ACLS protocols. At the discretion of the treating physician, intravenous adenosine was administered in order to facilitate identification of the underlying supraventricular tachydysrhythmia. All patients were attached to a monitor that displays cardiac rhythm, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation.
Upon enrollment, patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive diltiazem administered parenterally at a dose of 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 30 mg) or metoprolol administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 10 mg). Randomization was performed through the use of a computer-generated randomization list. Pharmacy released the study drug in a locked tackle box coded in number sequence to correspond to that of the computer-generated randomization list, upon which the pharmacist also prepared the study drug in blinded fashion. The study medications were packaged in identical-appearing dispensing kits. Patients who were randomly assigned to diltiazem received a bolus injection in a syringe that appeared identical to that of metoprolol. Admixture and labeling were performed by the pharmacist in the ED and dispensed to the treating nurse for administration. Doses of each study medication were adjusted with normal saline to a total of 10 ml in each syringe to prevent un-blinding. The time at which the first dose was administered was denoted as time zero (baseline). If the primary endpoint was not achieved at time 15 minutes, then a second escalation dose was administered. If the patient had been enrolled in the diltiazem group, the escalation dose was 0.35 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 30 mg), and for patients enrolled in the metoprolol group, the escalation dose was 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 10 mg). As with the initial dose, the escalation dose was prepared by the pharmacist and given to the treating nurse for patient administration in a blinded fashion.
- Conditions
- Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders
- Being tested
- Metoprolol, Diltiazem
- Keywords
- metoprolol, diltiazem, heart rate
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
MetoprololDrug
DiltiazemDrug
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Metoprolol Study Group | Active comparator | Patients Receiving metoprolol administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 10 mg) Receives: Drug: Metoprolol |
| Diltiazem Study Group | Active comparator | Patients receiving diltiazem administered parenterally at a dose of 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 30 mg) Receives: Drug: Diltiazem |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percent of Patients Reaching Target HR<100bpm Within 30 Minutes
Percent of patient who reached a HR<100bpm within 30 minutes from baseline.
Measured: 30 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2009
- Primary completionNov 2010
- Study completionNov 2010
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Heart Rate and Rhythm DisordersStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Antonios Likourezos
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Antonios Likourezos, Maimonides Medical Center
- Investigators
- John Marshall, MD, Study chair, Maimonides Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01914926
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 09/01/VA02
- Acronym
- DiME
- Status last verified
- May 2014
- First submitted
- 11 Jul 2013
- Last updated
- 15 May 2014
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Scott PA, Pancioli AM, Davis LA, Frederiksen SM, Eckman J. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and antithrombotic prophylaxis in emergency department patients. Stroke. 2002 Nov;33(11):2664-9. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000035260.70403.88.
PubMed 12411658McDonald AJ, Pelletier AJ, Ellinor PT, Camargo CA Jr. Increasing US emergency department visit rates and subsequent hospital admissions for atrial fibrillation from 1993 to 2004. Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.007. Epub 2007 Apr 27.
PubMed 17466409Friberg J, Buch P, Scharling H, Gadsbphioll N, Jensen GB. Rising rates of hospital admissions for atrial fibrillation. Epidemiology. 2003 Nov;14(6):666-72. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000091649.26364.c0.
PubMed 14569181Wattigney WA, Mensah GA, Croft JB. Increasing trends in hospitalization for atrial fibrillation in the United States, 1985 through 1999: implications for primary prevention. Circulation. 2003 Aug 12;108(6):711-6. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000083722.42033.0A. Epub 2003 Jul 28.
PubMed 12885749Stiell IG, Clement CM, Perry JJ, Vaillancourt C, Symington C, Dickinson G, Birnie D, Green MS. Association of the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol with rapid discharge of emergency department patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. CJEM. 2010 May;12(3):181-91. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500012227.
PubMed 20522282Friedman HZ, Goldberg SF, Bonema JD, Cragg DR, Hauser AM. Acute complications associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1991 Feb 15;67(5):437-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(91)90059-t. No abstract available.
PubMed 1994672Chenoweth J, Diercks DB. Management of atrial fibrillation in the acute setting. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012 Aug;18(4):333-40. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328354dc30.
PubMed 22622515Demircan C, Cikriklar HI, Engindeniz Z, Cebicci H, Atar N, Guler V, Unlu EO, Ozdemir B. Comparison of the effectiveness of intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol in the management of rapid ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation. Emerg Med J. 2005 Jun;22(6):411-4. doi: 10.1136/emj.2003.012047.
PubMed 15911947Kovacic JC, Moreno P, Nabel EG, Hachinski V, Fuster V. Cellular senescence, vascular disease, and aging: part 2 of a 2-part review: clinical vascular disease in the elderly. Circulation. 2011 May 3;123(17):1900-10. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009118. No abstract available.
PubMed 21537006Stiell IG, Macle L; CCS Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines Committee. Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: management of recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter in the emergency department. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Jan-Feb;27(1):38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2010.11.014.
PubMed 21329861Rogenstein C, Kelly AM, Mason S, Schneider S, Lang E, Clement CM, Stiell IG. An international view of how recent-onset atrial fibrillation is treated in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Nov;19(11):1255-60. doi: 10.1111/acem.12016.
PubMed 23167856Maxwell CJ, Hogan DB, Campbell NR, Ebly EM. Nifedipine and mortality risk in the elderly: relevance of drug formulation, dose and duration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000 Jan;9(1):11-23. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(200001/02)9:13.0.CO;2-U.
PubMed 19025798Jollis JG, Simpson RJ Jr, Chowdhury MK, Cascio WE, Crouse JR 3rd, Massing MW, Smith SC Jr. Calcium channel blockers and mortality in elderly patients with myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 1999 Oct 25;159(19):2341-8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.19.2341.
PubMed 10547174
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 May 2014. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- DiME Study: Comparison of Diltiazem and Metoprolol in the Management of Acute Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter With Rapid Ventricular Response: A Prospective Randomized and Double-Blinded Non-Inferiority Trial of Safety and Efficacy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01914926
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DiME / 09/01/VA02
- Conditions
- Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders
- Keywords
- metoprolol, diltiazem, heart rate
- Phase
- Phase 4
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Antonios LikourezosUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2009
- Primary completion
- Nov 2010 (actual)
- Study completion
- Nov 2010 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 16 Dec 2013
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Acute atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained, clinically significant dysrhythmia encountered in the emergency department (ED) and the most common dysrhythmia treated by emergency physicians. Atrial flutter is less common than atrial fibrillation but its management in the ED is very similar, and the majority of patients with atrial flutter also have atrial fibrillation. Symptomatic relief and ventricular rate control are generally the primary therapeutic objectives in the ED management of acute atrial fibrillation and flutter (AFF). The need for swift, appropriate action by the emergency physician is highlighted by the fact that up to 18% of patients with AFF develop potentially life-threatening complications such as congestive heart failure, hypotension, ventricular ectopy, respiratory failure, angina and myocardial infarction.
Both beta-blocking agents and calcium channel blockers are commonly used to treat AFF in the ED. Metoprolol is the most commonly used beta-blocker; and diltiazem is the most frequently used calcium channel antagonist.[8] Diltiazem was released by the FDA for treatment of AFF in 1992. Shreck et al. were the first to demonstrate both the efficacy of diltiazem in the ED management of AFF with rapid rate and its clear superiority over the previously most commonly used pharmacologic agent, digoxin.
To date, only one prospective, randomized trial has compared the effectiveness of a calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) with a beta-blocker (metoprolol) for rate control of AFF in the ED. Despite the relatively small sample size (n=20 in each group) the authors concluded that both pharmacologic agents were similarly effective. In order to test this finding, the investigators conducted a prospective comparison of metoprolol and diltiazem for the management of patients presenting to the ED with AFF with rapid ventricular rate.
Detailed description
We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to compare the effectiveness of intravenous metoprolol with that of diltiazem in achieving rate control in adult ED patients with rapid atrial fibrillation or flutter. Approval of the study was obtained from our hospital's institutional review board. All enrolled patients provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization documentation.
This study was set in the adult ED of Maimonides Medical Center, an urban teaching hospital in Brooklyn, NY with an annual ED census of more than 120,00 patients. A convenience sample of adult patients age 18 or older presenting with a supraventricular tachydysrhythmia were evaluated for enrollment. Eligible patients had to have a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter with a ventricular rate of greater than or equal to 120 beats per minute. Data collected included demographics, medical history, vital signs and electrocardiogram findings. All patients were immediately evaluated by the treating physician utilizing ACLS protocols. At the discretion of the treating physician, intravenous adenosine was administered in order to facilitate identification of the underlying supraventricular tachydysrhythmia. All patients were attached to a monitor that displays cardiac rhythm, heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation.
Upon enrollment, patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive diltiazem administered parenterally at a dose of 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 30 mg) or metoprolol administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 10 mg). Randomization was performed through the use of a computer-generated randomization list. Pharmacy released the study drug in a locked tackle box coded in number sequence to correspond to that of the computer-generated randomization list, upon which the pharmacist also prepared the study drug in blinded fashion. The study medications were packaged in identical-appearing dispensing kits. Patients who were randomly assigned to diltiazem received a bolus injection in a syringe that appeared identical to that of metoprolol. Admixture and labeling were performed by the pharmacist in the ED and dispensed to the treating nurse for administration. Doses of each study medication were adjusted with normal saline to a total of 10 ml in each syringe to prevent un-blinding. The time at which the first dose was administered was denoted as time zero (baseline). If the primary endpoint was not achieved at time 15 minutes, then a second escalation dose was administered. If the patient had been enrolled in the diltiazem group, the escalation dose was 0.35 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 30 mg), and for patients enrolled in the metoprolol group, the escalation dose was 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 10 mg). As with the initial dose, the escalation dose was prepared by the pharmacist and given to the treating nurse for patient administration in a blinded fashion.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Metoprolol Study Group | Active comparator | Drug: MetoprololPatients Receiving metoprolol administered at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 10 mg) |
| Diltiazem Study Group | Active comparator | Drug: DiltiazemPatients receiving diltiazem administered parenterally at a dose of 0.25 mg/kg (to a maximum dose of 30 mg) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Eligible patients had to have a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) showing atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter with a ventricular rate of greater than or equal to 120 beats per minute and a systolic blood pressure of greater than or equal to 90 mmHg.
Key exclusion criteria (14 listed)
- a systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, ventricular rate greater than or equal to 220 beats per minute,
- QRS >0.100 seconds, 2nd or 3rd degree atrioventricular (AV) block,
- temperature >38.0 ˚C,
- acute ST elevation myocardial infarction,
- known history of New York Heart Association Class IV heart failure or
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Metoprolol | Drug | Metoprolol Study Group |
| Diltiazem | Drug | Diltiazem Study Group |
Primary outcome
Percent of Patients Reaching Target HR<100bpm Within 30 Minutes
Time frame: 30 minutes
Percent of patient who reached a HR<100bpm within 30 minutes from baseline.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 May 2014.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 12411658Scott PA, Pancioli AM, Davis LA, Frederiksen SM, Eckman J. Prevalence of atrial fibrillation and antithrombotic prophylaxis in emergency department patients. Stroke. 2002 Nov;33(11):2664-9. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000035260.70403.88.
- Background: PubMed 17466409McDonald AJ, Pelletier AJ, Ellinor PT, Camargo CA Jr. Increasing US emergency department visit rates and subsequent hospital admissions for atrial fibrillation from 1993 to 2004. Ann Emerg Med. 2008 Jan;51(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.007. Epub 2007 Apr 27.
- Background: PubMed 14569181Friberg J, Buch P, Scharling H, Gadsbphioll N, Jensen GB. Rising rates of hospital admissions for atrial fibrillation. Epidemiology. 2003 Nov;14(6):666-72. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000091649.26364.c0.
- Background: PubMed 12885749Wattigney WA, Mensah GA, Croft JB. Increasing trends in hospitalization for atrial fibrillation in the United States, 1985 through 1999: implications for primary prevention. Circulation. 2003 Aug 12;108(6):711-6. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000083722.42033.0A. Epub 2003 Jul 28.
- Background: PubMed 20522282Stiell IG, Clement CM, Perry JJ, Vaillancourt C, Symington C, Dickinson G, Birnie D, Green MS. Association of the Ottawa Aggressive Protocol with rapid discharge of emergency department patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. CJEM. 2010 May;12(3):181-91. doi: 10.1017/s1481803500012227.
- Background: PubMed 1994672Friedman HZ, Goldberg SF, Bonema JD, Cragg DR, Hauser AM. Acute complications associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1991 Feb 15;67(5):437-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(91)90059-t. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 22622515Chenoweth J, Diercks DB. Management of atrial fibrillation in the acute setting. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012 Aug;18(4):333-40. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328354dc30.
- Background: PubMed 15911947Demircan C, Cikriklar HI, Engindeniz Z, Cebicci H, Atar N, Guler V, Unlu EO, Ozdemir B. Comparison of the effectiveness of intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol in the management of rapid ventricular rate in atrial fibrillation. Emerg Med J. 2005 Jun;22(6):411-4. doi: 10.1136/emj.2003.012047.
- Background: PubMed 21537006Kovacic JC, Moreno P, Nabel EG, Hachinski V, Fuster V. Cellular senescence, vascular disease, and aging: part 2 of a 2-part review: clinical vascular disease in the elderly. Circulation. 2011 May 3;123(17):1900-10. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009118. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21329861Stiell IG, Macle L; CCS Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines Committee. Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: management of recent-onset atrial fibrillation and flutter in the emergency department. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Jan-Feb;27(1):38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2010.11.014.
- Background: PubMed 23167856Rogenstein C, Kelly AM, Mason S, Schneider S, Lang E, Clement CM, Stiell IG. An international view of how recent-onset atrial fibrillation is treated in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Nov;19(11):1255-60. doi: 10.1111/acem.12016.
- Background: PubMed 19025798Maxwell CJ, Hogan DB, Campbell NR, Ebly EM. Nifedipine and mortality risk in the elderly: relevance of drug formulation, dose and duration. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000 Jan;9(1):11-23. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1557(200001/02)9:13.0.CO;2-U.
Related trials for Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Digital Phenotypes for Predicting Depression_Validation
Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder
Recruiting
Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Ablation or Medication
Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction
RecruitingObservational study
Interest of a Hybrid Connected Watch for Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring in Post-operative Cardiac Surgery
Atrial Fibrillation
Recruiting
Evaluation of Levothyroxine Replacement Therapy After Total Thyroidectomy Using a Smart Wristband
Total Thyroidectomy, Hyperthyroidism
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Studying Heart Rhythms With a Wearable Sensor to Detect and Predict Seizures in People With Epilepsy
Epilepsy, Temporal Lobe, Drug Resistant Epilepsy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
John Marshall, MD study chair
Maimonides Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 4 study testing Metoprolol and Diltiazem in people with Heart Rate and Rhythm Disorders, run by Antonios Likourezos at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 14 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 May 2014. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 16 Dec 2013). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percent of Patients Reaching Target HR<100bpm Within 30 Minutes (time frame: 30 minutes). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01914926, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 May 2014.