Author, date and country | Patient group | Study type (level of evidence) | Outcomes | Key results | Study Weaknesses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gullestad et al. 1993 USA | ED pts with SVT with onset < 1w; N = 57 | mag vs. verapamil; randomized, single-blind | conversion to sinus rhythm | 58% of Mag group converted to sinus rhythm in 4h; 19% of Verapamil group converted; p < 0.01 | mag alone |
Hays et al. 1994 USA | ED pts with new afib; N = 15 | Mag + Digoxin after 30m clinical case series | rate at 5m, then 30m for 3.5h | Ventricular Rate decrease of 16bpm +/- 7 and improved w/dig to 26% +/- 7 | no comparison group, small, case series |
Joshi et al. 1995 India | ED pts with SVT > 160bpm; N = 154 | 2g MgSO4 IV vs. 5mg Verapamil IV; randomized | HR < 100 binary | lower rate control with mag (19/74, 25.7%) compared to verapamil (48/80, 60%) p < 0.0001 | mag alone |
Eray 2000 | ED pts with Afib HR > 120bpm N = 34 | 2g MgSO4 IV then 1g/h over 6h; clinical case series | rate at 15, 30, 60m; mag level | Stasticially significant decrease in VR at each time period; no correlation between mag level and response | no comparsion group, mag alone |
Chiladakis et al. 2001 Greece | ED pts with Afib HR > 120bpm; N = 46 | mag vs. diltiazem; RCT | rate at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6h; conversion to sinus rhythm at 6h | similar decrease in both groups at each hour; higher conversion to sinus rhythm in mag group at 6h (13/23, 57%, p = 0.03) | not blinded, single agent tx |
Davey 2005 USA | ED pts with new afib; N = 199 | standard care + 2.5g Mag or standard + NS; randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled | HR < 100, Mean HR reduction | Mag more likely to lead to HR < 100bpm (RR 1.89, 95%CI 1.38-2.59); standard tx most often wsa dig | no control of other agents given with mag |
Ho et al. 2007 Australia | new afib, pooled studies; N = 515 | mag vs. placebo or mag vs. another agent; meta-analysis | HR < 100, conversion to NSR, reduction of ventricular response | compared to placebo, mag decreased ventricular response more when added to dig; less effective in reducing ventricular response compared to amio, mag was less likely to cause bradycardia | not a study |
Onalan et al. 2007 Canada | new afib, pooled studies; N = 779 | mag vs. placebo or mag vs. another agent; meta analysis | HR < 100, conversion to NSR, reduction of ventricular response | mag was effective in achieving rate and rhythm control compared to placebo; shorter response time in mag group compared to placebo | not a study |
Tercius 2007 | pts with afib who received ibutilide; N =229 | mag w/ibutilide vs. mag without ibutilide consecutive enrollment | conversion to NSR | mag increased the odds of NSR conversion by 78%; OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.02-3.09 | |
Kanji et al. 2008 | new afib, pooled studies; N = 143 | mag vs. amio, procainamide, esmolol, verapamil, dilt; systematic review | conversion to NSR | no difference across groups | not a study |
Chu 2009 | ED pts with new afib HR > 100bpm; N = 48 | mag vs. placebo; randomized | HR q15m; conversion to NSR | no difference across groups | mag alone, small sample |