BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are commonly co-prescribed with amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil, but whether there is a drug interaction between these drugs is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of clinical outcomes associated with concomitant use of DOACs and amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil.
METHODS: We identified DOAC users in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. We used a cohort design to estimate hazard ratios for ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, other bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality, comparing DOACs + amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil users and DOACs + beta-blocker users. A case-crossover design comparing odds of exposure to different drug initiation patterns for all outcomes in hazard window vs referent window within an individual also was conducted.
RESULTS: Of 397,459 DOAC users, we included 9075 co-prescribed amiodarone, 9612 co-prescribed diltiazem, and 2907 co-prescribed verapamil. There was no difference in risk of any outcomes between DOACs + amiodarone/diltiazem/verapamil users vs DOACs + beta-blocker users in the cohort design. However, in the case-crossover design, we observed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.09 (99% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.18) for all-cause mortality associated with initiation of a DOAC while taking amiodarone, which was greater than that observed for DOAC monotherapy (OR 1.30; 99% CI 1.25-1.35). Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality respectively with diltiazem.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed no evidence of higher bleeding or cardiovascular risk associated with co-prescribed DOACs and amiodarone, diltiazem, or verapamil. Elevated risks of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality were only observed during DOAC initiation when diltiazem/amiodarone were being taken.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains the greatest problem after hemorrhoidectomy. Pain is hypothesized to arise from bacterial infection, sphincter spasm, and local inflammation.
OBJECTIVE: This trial was conducted to assess the effects of metronidazole, diltiazem, and lidocaine on posthemorrhoidectomy pain.
METHODS: A double-blinded randomized controlled factorial trial.
METHODS: This multicenter trial was conducted in Auckland, New Zealand.
METHODS: A total of 192 participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into 4 parallel arms.
METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned into 1 of 4 groups receiving topical treatment with 10% metronidazole, 10% metronidazole + 2% diltiazem, 10% metronidazole + 4% lidocaine, or 10% metronidazole + 2% diltiazem + 4% lidocaine. Participants were instructed to apply treatment to the anal verge 3 times daily for 7 days.
METHODS: The primary outcome was pain on the visual analog scale on day 4. The secondary outcomes included analgesia usage, pain during bowel movement, and functional recovery index.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the pain and recovery scores when diltiazem or lidocaine was added to metronidazole (score difference between presence and absence of diltiazem in the formulation: -3.69; 95% CI, -13.3 to 5.94; p = 0.46; between presence and absence of lidocaine: -5.67; 95% CI, -15.5 to 3.80; p = 0.24). The combination of metronidazole + diltiazem + lidocaine did not further reduce pain. Secondary analysis revealed a significant difference between the best (metronidazole + lidocaine) and worst (metronidazole + diltiazem + lidocaine) groups in both pain and functional recovery scores. There were no significant differences in analgesic usage, complications, or return to work between the groups. No clinically important adverse events were reported. The adverse event rate did not change in the intervention groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Topical metronidazole was used in the control group rather than a pure placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in pain when topical diltiazem, lidocaine, or both were added to topical metronidazole. See Video Abstract .
BACKGROUND: NCT04276298.
UNASSIGNED: ANTECEDENTES:El dolor postoperatorio sigue siendo el mayor problema tras hemorroidectomía. La hipótesis es que el dolor se debe a infección bacteriana, el espasmo esfínteriano e inflamación local.OBJETIVO:Se realizó un ensayo factorial aleatorizado y controlado para evaluar los efectos del metronidazol, el diltiazem y la lidocaína en el dolor posthemorroidectomía.DISEÑO:Ensayo factorial controlado aleatorizado doble ciego.ESCENARIO:Se realizó un ensayo multicéntrico en Auckland, Nueva Zelanda.PACIENTES:Se aleatorizó a 192 participantes (1:1:1:1) en cuatro brazos paralelos.INTERVENCIONES:Los participantes se asignaron aleatoriamente a uno de los cuatro grupos que recibieron tratamiento tópico con metronidazol al 10% (M), metronidazol al 10% + diltiazem al 2% (MD), metronidazol al 10% + lidocaína al 4% (ML), o metronidazol al 10% + diltiazem al 2% + lidocaína al 4% (MDL). Se indicó a los participantes que lo aplicaran en el margen anal 3 veces al día durante 7 días.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el dolor en la escala analógica visual en el día 4. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron el uso de analgesia, el dolor al defecar y el índice de recuperación funcional.RESULTADOS:No hubo diferencias significativas en las puntuaciones de dolor y recuperación cuando se añadió diltiazem o lidocaína al metronidazol (diferencia de puntuación entre la presencia y la ausencia de D en la formulación: -3.69; IC del 95%: -13.3; 5.94; p = 0.46; entre la presencia y la ausencia de L: -5.67; IC del 95%: -15.5; 3.80; p = 0.24). La combinación de MDL no redujo más el dolor. El análisis secundario reveló una diferencia significativa entre los grupos mejor (ML) y peor (MDL) tanto en las puntuaciones de dolor como en las de recuperación funcional. No hubo diferencias significativas en el uso de analgésicos, las complicaciones o la reincorporación al trabajo entre los grupos. No se notificaron eventos adversos clínicamente importantes. La tasa de eventosadversos no cambió en los grupos de intervención.LIMITACIONES:Se utilizó metronidazol tópico en el grupo de control, en lugar de un placebo puro.CONCLUSIONES:No hubo diferencias significativas en el dolor cuando se añadió diltiazem tópico o lidocaína, o ambos, al metronidazol tópico. ( Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco )Identificador de registro del ensayo clínico:NCT04276298.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe the effectiveness and safety of a magistral formulation of diltiazem 2% rectal gel as a treatment for chronic anal fissure.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study of all patients that began treatment with diltiazem 2% gel during 2019. The primary endpoint of the study was anal fissure healing. We also looked for differences in effectiveness between those initiating treatment and those who had been previously treated, long-term effectiveness through a 2-year follow-up and frequency of adverse effects.
RESULTS: Of the 166 patients included in the study, anal fissure healed in 72.9%. We detected adverse effects in 12 patients, the most common was local irritation. After 2 years of follow-up, 88% of patients did not relapse.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, use of topical diltiazem 2% has been shown to be effective and safe in the treatment of anal fissure and should be considered as the first line of therapy.
OBJECTIVE: El objetivo de este estudio es describir la efectividad y la seguridad de una fórmula magistral de diltiazem 2% gel rectal, como tratamiento de la fisura anal crónica.
UNASSIGNED: Un studio observacional retrospectivo de todos los pacientes que comenzaron a ser tratados con diltiazem 2% gel durante el año 2019. La variable principal del estudio fue la cicatrización de la fisura anal. También se buscaron diferencias de efectividad entre aquellos que iniciaban el tratamiento y los que ya habían sido tratados previamente, efectividad a largo plazo mediante un seguimiento de 2 años y frecuencia de aparición de efectos adversos.
RESULTS: De los 166 pacientes incluidos en el estudio, el 72,9% cicatrizaron la fisura anal. No detectamos diferencias estadísticamente significativas de efectividad entre los pacientes naive y aquellos que ya habían sido tratados. Detectamos efectos adversos en 12 pacientes, siendo el más frecuente la irritación local. Tras 2 años de seguimiento, el 88% de los pacientes no presentaron ninguna recaída.
UNASSIGNED: En este estudio, el uso de diltiazem 2% tópico ha mostrado ser efectivo y seguro en el tratamiento de la fisura anal y debería considerarse como primera línea terapéutica.

In the past, quadratus lumborum block (QLB) was mostly used for postoperative analgesia in patients, and few anesthesiologists applied it during surgery with opioid-free anesthesia (OFA). Consequently, it is still unclear whether QLB in the supine position can provide perfect analgesia and inhibit anesthetic stress during surgery under the OFA strategy. To observe the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum block (US-QLB) in the supine position with OFA for lower abdominal and pelvic surgery. A total of 122 patients who underwent lower abdominal or pelvic surgery in People\'s Hospital of Wanning between March 2021 and July 2022 were selected and divided into a quadratus lumborum block group (Q) (n = 62) and control group (C) (n = 60) according to the random number table method. Both groups underwent general anesthesia combined with QLB in the supine position. After sedation, unilateral or bilateral QLB was performed via the ultrasound guided anterior approach based on images resembling a \"human eye\" and \"baby in a cradle\" under local anesthesia according to the needs of the operative field. In group Q, 20 ml of 0.50% lidocaine and 0.20% ropivacaine diluted in normal saline (NS) were injected into each side. In group C, 20 ml of NS was injected into each side. The values of BP, HR, SPO2, SE, RE, SPI, NRS, Steward score, dosage of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and rocuronium, the number of patients who needed remifentanil, propofol, or diltiazem, puncture point, block plane, duration of anesthesia, catheter extraction, and wakefulness during the operation were monitored. There were no significant differences in the general data, number of cases requiring additional remifentanil, propofol, or diltiazem treatment, as well as puncture point and puncture plane between the two groups (P > 0.05). HR, SBP, and DBP values were higher in group Q than in group C at T1; HR, SPI, and SE, while RE values were lower in group Q than in group C at T3, SE, and RE; the Steward score was higher in group Q than in group C at T4 and T5, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The extubation and awake times were lower in group Q than in group C, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The SE, RE, and SPI values were lower at T1, T2, T3, and T4 than at T0. The Steward scores at T4 and T5 were higher in group Q than in group C, and were lower than at T0, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in the effectiveness of postoperative analgesia between the two groups at t1, t3 and t4 (P < 0.05). US-QLB in the supine position with OFA is effective in patients undergoing lower abdominal or pelvic surgery with stable intraoperative vital signs, complete recovery and better postoperative analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no gold standard for monitoring noxious stimulation during surgery, and the surgical pleth index (SPI) is only one of many monitoring methods. It is commonly used in the monitoring of conventional opiate anesthesia, but its effectiveness in opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) has not been evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to observe the guidance value of the surgical pleth index in opioid-free anesthesia for patients undergoing lower abdominal or pelvic surgery.
METHODS: A total of 122 patients who underwent lower abdominal or pelvic surgery in our hospital between March 2021 and July 2022 were selected and equally divided into OFA (F) and control (C) groups according to the random number table method. Both groups underwent ultrasound-guided unilateral/bilateral quadratus lumborum block in the supine position according to the surgical field. In group F, 0.50% lidocaine and 0.20% ropivacaine (in 20 mL of 0.9% normal saline) were injected on each side. In group C, 20 mL 0.9% normal saline was injected on each side. Group F received general anesthesia without opioids and group C received general anesthesia with opioids. BP, pulse oxygen saturation, PETCO2, reactionentropy, stateentropy, and SPI values; Steward score; dosage of propofol, dexmedetomidine, rocuronium, and diltiazem; extubation time; and awake time were monitored in both groups.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the general data between the 2 groups (P > .05). There were no significant differences in SPI values at T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 or the number of cases requiring additional remifentanil, propofol, and diltiazem between the 2 groups (P > .05). The stateentropy, reactionentropy, and Steward scores were higher in group F than in group C at T4 and T5, while the extubation and awake times were lower in group F than in group C (P < .05). The heart rate and SPI of group F were lower than that of group C at T3 (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The guiding value of SPI in OFA was similar to its use in opiated anesthesia. Its clinical efficacy is exact, vital signs are stable, enabling rapid, and complete regaining of consciousness.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Distal esophageal spasm is an uncommon esophageal motility disorder presenting with non-cardiac chest pain and dysphagia. The main goal of therapy is symptom relief with pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical therapies. Pharmacologic treatment is less invasive and is the preferred method of choice. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of diltiazem versus fluoxetine in the treatment of distal esophageal spasm.
METHODS: A total of 125 patients with distal esophageal spasm diagnosed using endoscopy, barium esophagogram, and manometry were evaluated. Patients were divided into diltiazem and fluoxetine groups and received a 2-month trial of diltiazem + omeprazole or fluoxetine + omeprazole, respectively. Of 125 patients, 55 were lost to follow up and 70 were eligible for final analysis. Clinical signs and symptoms were assessed before and after therapy using four validated questionnaires: Eckardt score, short form-36, heartburn score, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale.
RESULTS: Both regimens significantly relieved symptoms (a decrease in mean Eckardt score of 2.57 and 3.18 for diltiazem and fluoxetine groups, respectively; and a decrease in mean heartburn score by 0.89 and 1.03 for diltiazem and fluoxetine groups, respectively). Patients\' quality of life improved based on short form-36 (an increase in mean score of 2.37 and 3.95 for fluoxetine and diltiazem groups, respectively). There was no relationship between patients\' improvement and severity of symptoms. Psychological findings based on the hospital anxiety and depression scale were inconsistent (a decrease in mean of 0.143 and 0.57 for fluoxetine and diltiazem groups, respectively; p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine and diltiazem were effective for clinical symptom relief in patients with distal esophageal spasm, but were not promising for improving psychological symptoms. Neither regimen was superior in terms of efficacy. Consequently, it is key to consider side effects and comorbidities when choosing a therapy.

Background: The anal fissure is one of the most common anorectal diseases that is associated with reduced quality of life and productivity loss. We aimed to compare the efficacy of topical nifedipine and diltiazem for the treatment of acute anal fissure (AAF). Methods: This single-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at Ziaeian hospital, Tehran. Patients with an acute fissure diagnosis were allocated to two groups. Group A applied 3 grams of 0.3% nifedipine cream on the peri-anal area, three times a day, for 8 weeks. Group B also applied the same amount of 2% diltiazem-ointment on the peri-anal area for the same period. The primary outcome was fissure remission in the 8th week of the treatments. The duration of pain relief, the side effect of treatment, and the recurrence rate were also compared between the groups. Results: After 8 weeks of treatment, a remission rate of 77.4% was shown in the nifedipine group which was significantly higher than the diltiazem group with a remission rate of 54% (P=0.01). Applying nifedipine ointment is associated with earlier pain relief compared with diltiazem (P<0.001). After 6 months of follow-up, the relapse rate was not statistically different between the nifedipine and diltiazem groups (16.3% versus 21.4%, respectively). Conclusion: The application of topical nifedipine is associated with shorter pain relief and more remission rate for AAF compared with topical diltiazem. However, both methods were not different in terms of related side effects and AAF recurrence rate.

Diltiazem is an antiarrhythmic drug widely used in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AFib) with rapid ventricular response (RVR). It reveals its effect by blocking L-type calcium channels. Thus, it inhibits the extracellular calcium influx into the cytosol. The relationship between serum calcium level and the efficacy of intravenous (IV) diltiazem used in the treatment of AFib with RVR has not been investigated in vivo. The aim of this study is to investigate the mentioned relationship.
This study was planned as a single-center retrospective study. The data of 349 patients who presented to the emergency department with AFib with RVR and treated with diltiazem were retrospectively analyzed. A patient was considered to have responded to diltiazem treatment if the existing heart rhythm returned to sinus rhythm, or the heart rate decreased below 100 beats/min, or the heart rate decreased >20% provided that it was below 120 beats/min. The ionized calcium levels were recorded. The relationship between serum calcium level and the success of diltiazem treatment was examined.
Fifty five percent of the patients were female. The median age was 75 years. The rate of response to diltiazem treatment was 67.3%. The median of ionized calcium levels in the group which responded to diltiazem treatment (n = 235) was 1.14 mmol/L (IQR: 0.12), and the group which did not respond to diltiazem treatment (n = 114) was 1.11 mmol/L (IQR: 0.12) (p = 0.322). The patients were divided into three groups as low, normal, and high calcium levels according to the calcium reference levels determined by the hospital laboratory. The rate of response to diltiazem treatment was 61.4% in patients with low ionized calcium levels, 76.1% in patients with normal ionized calcium levels, and 40.0% in patients with high ionized calcium levels. The rate of response to diltiazem treatment was higher in patients with normal ionized calcium levels compared to patients with low or high ionized calcium levels (p = 0.004, p = 0.003).
The success rate of diltiazem used in the treatment of AFib with RVR was highest in physiological calcium levels. The current study may provide the clinician with awareness about the consideration of serum ionized calcium levels when choosing drugs in patients with AFib with RVR.

The current evidence for chronic oral antispastic medication use after coronary artery bypass grafting using radial artery grafts (RA-CABG) is controversial. Calcium channel blockers, such as diltiazem, are the most commonly used antispastic medications after RA-CABG; other options include nitrates and nicorandil, but to date no sufficiently powered randomized controlled trials have been conducted to compare their efficacy.
This is a single-center, open-label, parallel three-arm, pilot randomized controlled trial. Patients without contraindications to any study medications and who successfully underwent RA-CABG surgery will be consecutively screened. Eligible patients will be randomized in a ratio of 1:1:1 (a total of 150 patients, 50 per arm) to receive nicorandil 5 mg orally thrice daily, diltiazem 180 mg orally once daily, or isosorbide mononitrate 50 mg orally once daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcomes are RA graft failure at week 1 and week 24. The secondary outcomes include major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned revascularization) and angina recurrence. The safety outcomes include hypotension occurrence, withdrawal of renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors, serious adverse events, and other concerned adverse events within 24 weeks.
This pilot trial will compare the preliminary effects of nicorandil, diltiazem, and isosorbide mononitrate on angiographic and clinical outcomes in patients who have undergone RA-CABG. Recruitment began in June 2020, and the estimated primary completion date is early 2023. Results of this study will provide much needed information for design of large confirmatory trials on the effectiveness of oral antispastic medications after RA-CABG.