• Logo
  • SBMUPublishing

Intravenous Amiodarone versus Digoxin in Atrial Fibrillation Rate Control; a Clinical Trial

Majid Shojaee, Bahareh Feizi, Reza Miri, Jalil Etemadi, Amir Hossein Feizi




Introduction: Treatment of rapid ventricular response arterial fibrillation (rapid AF) varies depending on the decision of the in-charge physician, condition of the patient, availability of the drug, and the treatment protocol of the hospital. The present study was designed aiming to compare IV digoxin and amiodarone in controlling the heart rate of patients presenting to emergency department with rapid AF and relative contraindication for first line drug in this regard.

Method: In the present clinical trial, patients presented to the ED with rapid AF and relative contraindication for calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers were treated with either IV amiodarone or IV digoxin and compared regarding success rate and complication using SPSS version 22. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results: 84 patients were randomly allocated to either amiodarone or digoxin treatment groups of 42 (53.6% male). The mean age of the studied patients was 61.8 ± 11.14 years (38 - 79). No significant difference was present regarding baseline characteristics. The rate of treatment failure was 21.4% (9 cases) in amiodarone and 59.5% (25 cases) in digoxin groups (p < 0.001). The mean onset of action was 56.66 ± 39.52 minutes (10 - 180) in amiodarone receivers and 135.38 ± 110.41 minutes (25 - 540) in digoxin group (p < 0.001). None of the patients showed any adverse outcomes of hypotension, bradycardia, and rhythm control.

Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, rapid AF patients with relative contraindication for calcium channel blockers or beta-blockers who had received amiodarone experienced both higher (about 2 times) treatment success and a more rapid (about 2.5 times) response compared to those who received IV digoxin.


Amiodarone; digoxin; arrhythmias, cardiac; anti-arrhythmia agents; emergency department


Stellbrink C. What an emergency physician needs to know about acute care of cardiac arrhythmias. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock. 2010;3(2):126.

Cochrane A, Siddins M, Rosenfeldt F, Salamonsen R, McConaghy L, Marasco S, et al. A comparison of amiodarone and digoxin for treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias after cardiac surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 1994;8(4):194-8.

Lip GY, Kakar P, Watson T. Atrial fibrillation—the growing epidemic. Heart. 2007;93(5):542.

Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GY, Schotten U, Savelieva I, Ernst S, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European heart journal. 2010;31(19):2369-429.

Jung F, DiMarco JP. Treatment strategies for atrial fibrillation. The American journal of medicine. 1998;104(3):272-86.

Kowey PR, Marinchak RA, Rials SJ, Filart RA. Acute treatment of atrial fibrillation. The American journal of cardiology. 1998;81(5):16C-22C.

Heny F, Clomo M, PhD Mark A. Intraverous amiodarone for acute heart rate control in the critically ill patient with atrial tachyarhythmias. J Am Cardiol. 1998;81(3):594-8.

Cowan JC, Gardiner P, Reid DS, Newell DJ, Campbell RWF. A Comparison of Amiodarone and Digoxin in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Complicating Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology. 1986;8(2):252-6.

Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, Wyse DG, Dorian P, Lee KL, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358(25):2667-77.

del Arco C, Martín A, Laguna P, Gargantilla P, Group iitSAFiEMS. Analysis of current management of atrial fibrillation in the acute setting: GEFAUR-1 study. Annals of emergency medicine. 2005;46(5):424-30.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/emergency.v5i1.14968

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


  • There are currently no refbacks.