Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

Montreal Heart Institute and the Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H1T 1C8, Canada.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 07/2008; 358(25):2667-77. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708789
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It is common practice to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure. This approach is based in part on data indicating that atrial fibrillation is a predictor of death in patients with heart failure and suggesting that the suppression of atrial fibrillation may favorably affect the outcome. However, the benefits and risks of this approach have not been adequately studied.
We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control) with control of the ventricular rate (rate control) in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, symptoms of congestive heart failure, and a history of atrial fibrillation. The primary outcome was the time to death from cardiovascular causes.
A total of 1376 patients were enrolled (682 in the rhythm-control group and 694 in the rate-control group) and were followed for a mean of 37 months. Of these patients, 182 (27%) in the rhythm-control group died from cardiovascular causes, as compared with 175 (25%) in the rate-control group (hazard ratio in the rhythm-control group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.59 by the log-rank test). Secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups, including death from any cause (32% in the rhythm-control group and 33% in the rate-control group), stroke (3% and 4%, respectively), worsening heart failure (28% and 31%), and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or worsening heart failure (43% and 46%). There were also no significant differences favoring either strategy in any predefined subgroup.
In patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure, a routine strategy of rhythm control does not reduce the rate of death from cardiovascular causes, as compared with a rate-control strategy. ( number, NCT00597077.)

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia and is associated with poor outcomes, including stroke. The ability of anticoagulation therapy to reduce the risk of stroke has been well established; however, the prevalence of anticoagulation therapy use in the Public Health System is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate both the prevalence of anticoagulation therapy among patients with atrial fibrillation and the indications for the treatment.
    Clinics (São Paulo, Brazil) 09/2014; 69(9):615-620. · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIMS: It is unknown whether lenient rate control is an acceptable strategy in patients with AF and heart failure. We evaluated differences in outcome in patients with AF and heart failure treated with lenient or strict rate control. METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the RACE II trial included patients with an LVEF ≤ 40% at baseline or a previous hospitalization for heart failure or signs and symptoms of heart failure. Primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were AF-related symptoms and quality of life. Two hundred and eighty-seven (46.7%) of the 614 patients had heart failure. Patients with heart failure had significantly higher NT-proBNP plasma levels, a lower LVEF, and more often used ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and diuretics. At 3 years follow-up, the primary outcome occurred more frequently in patients with heart failure (16.7% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.04). In heart failure patients, the estimated cumulative incidence of the primary outcome was 15.0% (n = 20) in the lenient and 18.2% (n = 26) in the strict group (P = 0.53). No differences were found in any of the primary outcome components, in either heart failure hospitalizations [8 (6.1%) vs. 9 (6.8%) patients in the lenient vs. strict group, respectively], symptoms, or quality of life. CONCLUSION: In patients with AF and heart failure with a predominantly preserved EF, the stringency of rate control seems to have no effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, symptoms, and quality of life.
    European Journal of Heart Failure 06/2013; · 5.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We assessed the value of left atrium speckle tracking imaging (STI) indices, and clinical and other echocardiographic parameters in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients to predict the efficacy of electrical cardioversion (EC) and sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance at 6 months. Eighty persistent AF patients planned to receive EC, underwent echocardiography including STI. After 24h, patients with successful EC were examined to predict SR maintenance. After 6 months patients with no AF recurrence in electrocardiogram (ECG) underwent 7-day ECG to exclude silent AF. Every AF>1min was a recurrence. SR restored in 61 patients, 19 unsuccessful. Prior use of statins (68.8% vs. 42.1%, p=0.03) was the only factor, determined later by univariate analysis to be a significant EC success predictor (OR=1.09, CL±95% 1.001-1.019, p<0.03). Both groups received similar antiarrhythmics and had similar echocardiographic parameters. After 6 months, SR was maintained in 19 patients (31.1%, Group I); AF recurrences were registered in 42 patients (68.8%, Group II). In Group I, only the mitral valve deceleration time (MVDT) 224.18±88.13 vs. 181.6±60.6 in Group II, p=0.04) and the dispersion of time to peak longitudinal strain (dTPLS) (86.0±68.3 vs. 151.8±89.6, p=0.03) differed significantly. The univariate analysis revealed dTPLS as a significant predictor of SR maintenance. High EC efficacy and frequent AF recurrences were observed. The dispersion of time to the maximal longitudinal strain (LS) of left atrial segments facilitated prediction of SR maintenance. The value of 7-day ECG monitoring for detection of arrhythmia after 6 months was limited.
    Advances in Medical Sciences 03/2014; 59(1):120-5. · 0.80 Impact Factor