PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15596954

Rate control versus rhythm control.

Humberto Vidaillet·Robert T Greenlee
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The results of five randomized clinical trials comparing rate control with rhythm control in the management of atrial fibrillation have been published recently. The purpose of this report is to review their main results and selected subanalyses and other related data to offer practical recommendations regarding the treatment of patients with this common arrhythmia. RECENT FINDINGS: In the aggregate, the five trials enrolled a total of 5175 subjects and accumulated 16,186 patient-years of follow-up. All these trials have had similar results in that each of them failed to demonstrate a clear advantage of the rhythm control approach over that of rate control. The largest of the studies, the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study, enrolled 79% of all the cases in the five trials and accounts for 88% of the cumulative follow-up experience and for 92% of all deaths. Among AFFIRM participants, antiarrhythmic drug use did not improve survival, stroke risk, quality of life, or functional capacity but was associated with increased resource use. In several of the trials, however, the presence of sinus rhythm was associated with improved outcomes. SUMMARY: The evidence is now overwhelming that for most patients with atrial fibrillation, rhythm control using currently available antiarrhythmic drugs is more expensive but not more effective than the rate control strategy in the prevention of major adverse events. Further research is needed to determine whether maintaining sinus rhythm by other means can improve outcomes.

Explore related subjects

Anti-Arrhythmia AgentsAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationClinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisElectric CountershockHeart RateHumansQuality of LifeStrokeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Humberto Vidaillet, Robert T Greenlee. 2005. Rate control versus rhythm control.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15596954/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy for preventing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all randomized, controlled trials assessing the efficacy of adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Trial data were reviewed and extracted independently by two investigators in an unblinded, standardized manner. Eight trials including a total of 1889 patients were analysed. There was heterogeneity in the type of antiarrhythmic used in the treatment arm (amiodarone, sotalol, azimilide, and dofetilide) as well as in the control group (five trials compared with placebo and three trials compared with beta-blocker). The main outcome, risk of shock therapy, was reduced when comparing amiodarone plus beta-blocker with beta-blocker alone (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14-0.52) and when comparing sotalol with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.4-0.78). The effect was not conclusive when comparing sotalol with other beta-blocker (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.37-1) and azimilide or dofetilide with placebo (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58-1.04 and HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1.04, respectively). Although there were some benefits for secondary outcomes in all antiarrhythmics, the magnitude of the benefit was higher with amiodarone. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone is the most effective treatment to reduce ICD shock therapies. The benefit of other antiarrhythmics is limited to secondary outcomes.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents↗
PubMed2007

Non-antiarrhythmic agents for prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation: role of statins.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia following cardiac surgery, having both serious medical and socioeconomic consequences. Although there are established antiarrhythmic agents for preventing and treating postoperative atrial fibrillation, these therapies are neither 100% reliable, nor without risks and limitations. Thus, there remains a strong need for non-antiarrhythmic, adjunctive therapies for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation. RECENT FINDINGS: Long-term statin administration in ambulatory patients is associated with a reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal dysfunction and atrial fibrillation. Recent evidence suggests, however, that statins may also reduce the risk of acute adverse outcomes following invasive procedures, including postoperative atrial fibrillation. Although the exact mechanisms by which statins may reduce postoperative atrial fibrillation are unclear, accumulating evidence suggests that statins exert multiple effects independent of their effect on LDL cholesterol. For example, in patients with acute coronary syndromes, statin therapy has been shown to modulate remodeling of the cardiac extracellular matrix and to reduce markers of inflammation, including C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and IL-6. SUMMARY: Perioperative statin therapy may represent an important non-antiarrhythmic, adjunctive therapeutic strategy for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents↗
PubMed2007

A review of the literature on atrial fibrillation: rate reversion or control?

AIMS: The aim of this paper is to review the current literature describing the aetiology of atrial fibrillation and to examine the evidence for rate reversion and rate control. BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly seen arrhythmia within the clinical setting. Treatment depends on severity of symptoms, which are predominantly palpitations and shortness of breath. The primary complications from atrial fibrillation are thrombo-embolic events (such as a pulmonary embolus or stroke). OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review on atrial fibrillation, rate reversion and rate control was undertaken to examine the incidence of atrial fibrillation, to review research on management of atrial fibrillation and to determine if rate reversion was superior to rate control in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Many studies have been carried out to determine the best treatment for this condition. The choices are currently pharmacological and electrical cardioversion in conjunction with anticoagulant therapy. Drug therapies are not without their problems, especially toxicity and the need for close clinical monitoring. Transaesophageal echocardiography has been used to establish the presence of left atrial thrombi and aims to reduce the anticoagulation time and reduce the risk of thrombo-embolic events. A randomized comparative study of transaesophageal echocardiography and conventional anticoagulation therapy prior to cardioversion demonstrated statistically significant reduction in haemorrhagic events and a shorter time to cardioversion in those in the transaesophageal echocardiography group compared with the conventional group. For those with persistent atrial fibrillation, surgery is an option with valve repair or replacement carried out in conjunction with a bi-atrial surgical ablation. CONCLUSIONS: The management of atrial fibrillation is dependent on many factors and to date there are no proven clinical rationale for rate control or reversion. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Atrial fibrillation requires immediate attention in order to avoid thrombo-embolic complications and the use of transaesophageal echocardiography and conventional anticoagulation therapy can significantly reduce these complications.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents↗