3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Revisiting Rate versus Rhythm Control in Atrial Fibrillation — Timing Matters

      1 , 1
      New England Journal of Medicine
      Massachusetts Medical Society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

          There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended. We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality. A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic. Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients. Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Early Rhythm-Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

            Despite improvements in the management of atrial fibrillation, patients with this condition remain at increased risk for cardiovascular complications. It is unclear whether early rhythm-control therapy can reduce this risk.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Relationships between sinus rhythm, treatment, and survival in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Study.

              The AFFIRM Study showed that treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk for stroke or death with a rhythm-control strategy offered no survival advantage over a rate-control strategy in an intention-to-treat analysis. This article reports an "on-treatment" analysis of the relationship of survival to cardiac rhythm and treatment as they changed over time. Modeling techniques were used to determine the relationships among survival, baseline clinical variables, and time-dependent variables. The following baseline variables were significantly associated with an increased risk of death: increasing age, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, smoking, left ventricular dysfunction, and mitral regurgitation. Among the time-dependent variables, the presence of sinus rhythm (SR) was associated with a lower risk of death, as was warfarin use. Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) were associated with increased mortality only after adjustment for the presence of SR. Consistent with the original intention-to-treat analysis, AADs were no longer associated with mortality when SR was removed from the model. Warfarin use improves survival. SR is either an important determinant of survival or a marker for other factors associated with survival that were not recorded, determined, or included in the survival model. Currently available AADs are not associated with improved survival, which suggests that any beneficial antiarrhythmic effects of AADs are offset by their adverse effects. If an effective method for maintaining SR with fewer adverse effects were available, it might be beneficial.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                Massachusetts Medical Society
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                August 29 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]From the Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMe2027180
                23f8028a-07ec-4e3b-bf98-1a903b7a60e1
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article