Atrial Fibrillation Rate Control in the ED: Calcium Channel Blockers or Beta Blockers?
Rate control with IV medications is recommended for atrial fibrillation in the acute setting in patients without preexcitation. This was a Class 1 recommendation (Level of Evidence B) per the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [1]. What does the evidence say? Are calcium channel blockers or beta blockers better?



There are a few reasons why piperacillin/tazobactam (Zosyn) is not usually my first choice for a broad-spectrum gram-negative agent in the ED. First, at my institution, the Pseudomonas aeruginosa susceptibilities to pip-tazo are lower than that for cefepime. Second, pip-tazo does not have great CNS penetration, especially compared to ceftriaxone, cefepime, or even meropenem. Third, do we really need the anaerobic coverage that pip-tazo provides for every sick patient? Pip-tazo is great for empiric treatment of intra-abdominal and severe diabetic foot infections, but may not be needed for a hospital-acquired pneumonia. Fourth, with its frequent dosing (every 6 hours), too often the second dose is missed if the patient is still boarding in the ED.