Table 1 Open in new tab Studies that...

Study

Type of study

Patients

Age (years)

LVEF (%)

Atrial tachyarrhythmia

HR (beats/min)

Landiolol dose (μg/kg^–1/min^–1)

Results

J-Land study¹⁴

Prospective

200

71.6 ± 11.5

36.6 ± 7.6

AF/AFL

138.1 ± 15.3

1–10

Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR.

Kinugawa¹⁵

Prospective

200

71.6 ± 11.5

36.6 ± 7.6

AF/AFL

138.1 ± 15.3

1–10

Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR, regardless of patients’ characteristics.

Wada et al.¹⁶

Retrospective

72 ± 11

34 ± 16

AF/AFL

152 ± 19

1–10

Landiolol was effective in controlling HR and in nine of them, AF was spontaneously terminated.

Ozaki et al.¹⁷

HFrEF: 68 ± 13

≥ 120

HFrEF (max): 2.9 ± 1.6

Landiolol was more effective in HFpEF patients than HfrEF patients.

HFpEF: 84 ± 9

HFpEF (max): 2.6 ± 1.5

Kiuchi et al.¹⁸

Retrospective

AF/AFL

132

min: 0.5–1

HR decreased in both landiolol and diltiazem groups whereas a significant BP reduction was recorded only in diltiazem group. Switching to oral BB was accomplished sooner with landiolol.

max: 5.57 ± 4.78

Oka et al.¹⁹

Retrospective

72.4 ± 12.6

33.1 ± 13.7

AF/AFL/AT

143.1 ± 15.2　

1–10

Landiolol was more effective in AF patients than AFL/AT patients.

Iwahashi et al.²⁰

Prospective

101

63–81

18–32

133–156

min: 1

Landiolol was effective in controlling HR, especially in those with small LV volume and high BP.

max: 3.8 ± 2.3

Matsui et al.²¹

Retrospective

67 ± 12

41 ± 13

AF/AFL/AT

141 ± 17

1–12

Landiolol was effective in controlling HR, especially in those with LVEF ≥ 40%.

Shinohara et al. ²²

Retrospective

66.7 ± 16.1

23.8 ± 3.9

142.3 ± 16.8

0.5–10

Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR.

Table 1

Open in new tab

Studies that aimed to evaluate the efficacy of landiolol in AHF patients with atrial tachyarrhythmia

Study	Type of study	Patients	Age (years)	LVEF (%)	Atrial tachyarrhythmia	HR (beats/min)	Landiolol dose (μg/kg^–1/min^–1)	Results
J-Land study¹⁴	Prospective	200	71.6 ± 11.5	36.6 ± 7.6	AF/AFL	138.1 ± 15.3	1–10	Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR.
Kinugawa¹⁵	Prospective	200	71.6 ± 11.5	36.6 ± 7.6	AF/AFL	138.1 ± 15.3	1–10	Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR, regardless of patients’ characteristics.
Wada et al.¹⁶	Retrospective	39	72 ± 11	34 ± 16	AF/AFL	152 ± 19	1–10	Landiolol was effective in controlling HR and in nine of them, AF was spontaneously terminated.
Ozaki et al.¹⁷	NA	33	HFrEF: 68 ± 13	NA	AF	≥ 120	HFrEF (max): 2.9 ± 1.6	Landiolol was more effective in HFpEF patients than HfrEF patients.
Ozaki et al.¹⁷	NA	33	HFpEF: 84 ± 9	NA	AF	≥ 120	HFpEF (max): 2.6 ± 1.5
Kiuchi et al.¹⁸	Retrospective	59	74	42	AF/AFL	132	min: 0.5–1	HR decreased in both landiolol and diltiazem groups whereas a significant BP reduction was recorded only in diltiazem group. Switching to oral BB was accomplished sooner with landiolol.
Kiuchi et al.¹⁸	Retrospective	59	74	42	AF/AFL	132	max: 5.57 ± 4.78
Oka et al.¹⁹	Retrospective	77	72.4 ± 12.6	33.1 ± 13.7	AF/AFL/AT	143.1 ± 15.2	1–10	Landiolol was more effective in AF patients than AFL/AT patients.
Iwahashi et al.²⁰	Prospective	101	63–81	18–32	AF	133–156	min: 1	Landiolol was effective in controlling HR, especially in those with small LV volume and high BP.
Iwahashi et al.²⁰	Prospective	101	63–81	18–32	AF	133–156	max: 3.8 ± 2.3
Matsui et al.²¹	Retrospective	67	67 ± 12	41 ± 13	AF/AFL/AT	141 ± 17	1–12	Landiolol was effective in controlling HR, especially in those with LVEF ≥ 40%.
Shinohara et al. ²²	Retrospective	53	66.7 ± 16.1	23.8 ± 3.9	AF	142.3 ± 16.8	0.5–10	Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR.

Study	Type of study	Patients	Age (years)	LVEF (%)	Atrial tachyarrhythmia	HR (beats/min)	Landiolol dose (μg/kg^–1/min^–1)	Results
J-Land study¹⁴	Prospective	200	71.6 ± 11.5	36.6 ± 7.6	AF/AFL	138.1 ± 15.3	1–10	Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR.
Kinugawa¹⁵	Prospective	200	71.6 ± 11.5	36.6 ± 7.6	AF/AFL	138.1 ± 15.3	1–10	Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR, regardless of patients’ characteristics.
Wada et al.¹⁶	Retrospective	39	72 ± 11	34 ± 16	AF/AFL	152 ± 19	1–10	Landiolol was effective in controlling HR and in nine of them, AF was spontaneously terminated.
Ozaki et al.¹⁷	NA	33	HFrEF: 68 ± 13	NA	AF	≥ 120	HFrEF (max): 2.9 ± 1.6	Landiolol was more effective in HFpEF patients than HfrEF patients.
Ozaki et al.¹⁷	NA	33	HFpEF: 84 ± 9	NA	AF	≥ 120	HFpEF (max): 2.6 ± 1.5
Kiuchi et al.¹⁸	Retrospective	59	74	42	AF/AFL	132	min: 0.5–1	HR decreased in both landiolol and diltiazem groups whereas a significant BP reduction was recorded only in diltiazem group. Switching to oral BB was accomplished sooner with landiolol.
Kiuchi et al.¹⁸	Retrospective	59	74	42	AF/AFL	132	max: 5.57 ± 4.78
Oka et al.¹⁹	Retrospective	77	72.4 ± 12.6	33.1 ± 13.7	AF/AFL/AT	143.1 ± 15.2	1–10	Landiolol was more effective in AF patients than AFL/AT patients.
Iwahashi et al.²⁰	Prospective	101	63–81	18–32	AF	133–156	min: 1	Landiolol was effective in controlling HR, especially in those with small LV volume and high BP.
Iwahashi et al.²⁰	Prospective	101	63–81	18–32	AF	133–156	max: 3.8 ± 2.3
Matsui et al.²¹	Retrospective	67	67 ± 12	41 ± 13	AF/AFL/AT	141 ± 17	1–12	Landiolol was effective in controlling HR, especially in those with LVEF ≥ 40%.
Shinohara et al. ²²	Retrospective	53	66.7 ± 16.1	23.8 ± 3.9	AF	142.3 ± 16.8	0.5–10	Landiolol was more effective than digoxin in controlling HR.

AF, atrial fibrillation; AFL, atrial flutter; AT, atrial tachycardia; BB, beta-blocker; BP, blood pressure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HR, heart rate; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NA, non-available.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only