Calcium Channel Blockers vs. Beta-Blockers for AFib

observational-study PMID: 37433659

Quick Summary: This research looked at how well two types of heart medications, calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers, control heart rate in people with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation (AFib). The study found both worked well to control heart rate during AFib, but calcium channel blockers were linked to fewer instances of a slow heart rate (bradycardia) when the heart was beating normally.

Calcium Channel Blockers and AFib: What the Study Found

The study compared two common medications used to control heart rate in people with AFib:

Calcium channel blockers: These drugs help relax blood vessels and slow the heart rate.

Beta-blockers: These drugs also slow the heart rate and lower blood pressure.

The research showed:

Both types of drugs were equally effective at controlling heart rate during AFib. About 92% of patients on either medication achieved the target heart rate.

Calcium channel blockers were linked to less bradycardia (slow heart rate) when the heart was in a normal rhythm. Fewer people taking calcium channel blockers experienced a slow heart rate compared to those taking beta-blockers.

Study Details

Who was studied: Over 4,000 people with AFib were initially studied, but this research focused on a smaller group of 474 patients who were taking either calcium channel blockers or beta-blockers.

How long: The study followed patients for an unspecified period.

What they took: Patients were taking either calcium channel blockers (like diltiazem or verapamil) or beta-blockers. The specific doses varied.

What This Means For You

If you have AFib and need medication to control your heart rate, this study suggests:

Your doctor might consider calcium channel blockers if you're prone to a slow heart rate. This could be especially important if you experience symptoms like dizziness or fatigue from a slow heart rate.

Beta-blockers may still be a good choice. Beta-blockers are often used to treat other conditions like high blood pressure. Your doctor will consider your overall health when choosing the best medication for you.

Always talk to your doctor. Don't change your medication without consulting your healthcare provider. They can help you understand the best treatment plan for your specific needs.

Study Limitations

It's important to keep these things in mind:

This study looked at existing data. It wasn't specifically designed to compare these two medications.

The study didn't control the exact doses of the medications.

The results may not apply to everyone. The average age of the participants was 70 years old.

More research is needed.

Key Findings

The study found that in patients with non-permanent atrial fibrillation (AF), calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and beta-blockers achieved comparable heart rate control during AF episodes (92% of patients met the target resting heart rate <110 bpm; p=1.00). However, CCBs were associated with significantly lower rates of bradycardia (heart rate <60 bpm) during sinus rhythm compared to beta-blockers (17% vs. 32%; p<0.001). After adjusting for baseline factors (e.g., age, sex, comorbidities), CCB use correlated with a 59% reduced odds of bradycardia during sinus rhythm (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19–0.90).

Study Design

This was an observational analysis of data from the AFFIRM trial (n=4,060 patients with AF; mean age 70±9 years, 39% women). The subset analyzed included 1,112 patients in sinus rhythm at baseline who were on either non-dihydropyridine CCBs (e.g., verapamil, diltiazem) or beta-blockers. Of these, 474 patients experienced AF recurrence during follow-up while remaining on their assigned rate-control medication. The study used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for confounding variables.

Dosage & Administration

The provided summary does not specify exact doses or administration protocols for CCBs or beta-blockers. The AFFIRM trial generally followed clinical guidelines for rate control, with doses titrated to achieve resting heart rate targets.

Results & Efficacy

Heart Rate Control During AF: No significant difference between CCBs and beta-blockers in achieving resting heart rate <110 bpm during AF (92% vs. 92%; p=1.00).
Bradycardia During Sinus Rhythm: CCB users had a 15% absolute risk reduction in bradycardia compared to beta-blocker users (17% vs. 32%; p<0.001). Adjusted analysis confirmed this association (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19–0.90).
Demographics: CCB patients were slightly older (70±8 vs. 68±8 years; p=0.003), and 42% were women.

Limitations

Observational design limits causal inference; results may reflect confounding by indication or unmeasured variables.
Post-hoc analysis of a trial not originally designed to compare these drug classes.
Dose variability and lack of data on adherence or titration protocols.
Bradycardia definitions and heart rate monitoring methods were not standardized.
Generalizability may be limited to older adults (mean age 70 years) with non-permanent AF.

Clinical Relevance

For patients with non-permanent AF requiring rate control, non-dihydropyridine CCBs may be preferable to beta-blockers when minimizing bradycardia risk during sinus rhythm is a priority. This could benefit individuals prone to side effects from excessive heart rate slowing (e.g., athletes, those with hypotension). However, individualized treatment remains critical, as beta-blockers may still be optimal for patients with coexisting conditions like hypertension or angina. Clinicians should weigh these findings against safety profiles, contraindications, and patient-specific factors.

Source: PubMed (2023)
Word count: 398