Should rhythm control be preferred in younger atrial fibrillation patients?
- 231 Downloads
Rate- and rhythm control are two fundamental strategies to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are inconsistent results between clinical trials about which treatment should be preferred. The aims of this study were to systematically summarize the clinical trials and compare rate- and rhythm control strategies regarding composite outcome of all cause mortality, worsening heart failure, and thromboembolic and bleeding events.
English and non-English studies that were published from 1966 onwards were included in this meta-analysis if they were prospective randomized controlled trials which compared rate- and rhythm control strategies in patients with AF. The individual and combined outcomes were analyzed quantitatively with odds ratio and 95 % confidence interval.
Ten prospective randomized controlled trials with 7,876 patients were identified. There was no significant difference regarding primary composite outcome (11.47 vs. 11.03 % per year; odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.90–1.20; P = 0.64) between rate- and rhythm control groups in overall age group. Meta-analysis for studies with mean age <65 years showed that rate control had significantly higher risk in primary composite outcome compared with rhythm control (8.74 vs. 4.80 % per year; OR, 1.89; 95 %CI, 1.26–2.86; P = 0.002).
A significant trend towards that rhythm control may be a preferable strategy for younger AF patients was observed in this study.
KeywordsAtrial fibrillation Treatment strategy
American College of Cardiology
American Heart Association
Coronary artery disease
European Society of Cardiology
Randomized controlled trials
We would like to acknowledge all the investigators in those clinical trials that we included in this study.
Conflict and interest
- 2.Miyasaka, Y., Barnes, M. E., Gersh, B. J., Cha, S. S., Bailey, K. R., Abhayaratna, W. P., et al. (2006). Secular trends in incidence of atrial fibrillation in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000, and implications on the projections for future prevalence. Circulation, 114, 119–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Go, A. S., Hylek, E. M., Phillips, K. A., Chang, Y., Henault, L. E., Selby, J. V., et al. (2001). Prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: national implications for rhythm management and stroke prevention: the Anti-coagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2370–2375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Fuster, V., Rydén, L. E., Cannom, D. S., Crijns, H. J., Curtis, A. B., Ellenbogen, K. A., American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association Task Force, European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines, European Heart Rhythm Association, Heart Rhythm Society, et al. (2006). ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: full text: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation) developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Europace, 8, 651–745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Wyse, D. G., Waldo, A. L., DiMarco, J. P., Domanski, M. J., Rosenberg, Y., Schron, E. B., Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Investigators, et al. (2002). A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1825–1833.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Carlsson, J., Miketic, S., Windeler, J., Cuneo, A., Haun, S., Micus, S., STAF Investigators, et al. (2003). Randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control in persistent atrial fibrillation: the Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 41, 1690–1696.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Van Gelder, I. C., Hagens, V. E., Bosker, H. A., Kingma, J. H., Kamp, O., Kingma, T., Rate control versus electrical cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Study Group, et al. (2002). A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1834–1840.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Opolski, G., Torbicki, A., Kosior, D. A., Szulc, M., Wozakowska-Kaplon, B., Kolodziej, P., Investigators of the Polish How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation Study, et al. (2004). Rate control vs rhythm control in patients with nonvalvular persistent atrial fibrillation: the results of the Polish How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (HOT CAFE) Study. Chest, 126, 476–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Roy, D., Talajic, M., Nattel, S., Wyse, D. G., Dorian, P., Lee, K. L., Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure Investigators, et al. (2008). Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2667–2677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Corley, S. D., Epstein, A. E., DiMarco, J. P., Domanski, M. J., Geller, N., Greene, H. L., et al. (2004). Relationships between sinus rhythm, treatment, and survival in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Study. Circulation, 109, 1509–1513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. British Med J, 339, b2700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar