COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure

Denis Roy, Mario Talajic, Stanley Nattel, D George Wyse, Paul Dorian, Kerry L Lee, Martial G Bourassa, J Malcolm O Arnold, Alfred E Buxton, A John Camm, Stuart J Connolly, Marc Dubuc, Anique Ducharme, Peter G Guerra, Stefan H Hohnloser, Jean Lambert, Jean-Yves Le Heuzey, Gilles O'Hara, Ole Dyg Pedersen, Jean-Lucien Rouleau, Bramah N Singh, Lynne Warner Stevenson, William G Stevenson, Bernard Thibault, Albert L Waldo
New England Journal of Medicine 2008 June 19, 358 (25): 2667-77
18565859

BACKGROUND: 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.

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSIONS: 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. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597077.)

Full Text Links

We have located open access full text paper links.

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Responses

Sort by: Most RecentHighest Rated

Shivesh Goberdhan

Very deceiving conclusion, if you read the actual article it says that they recommend rate control over rhythm control, should include that in the brief conclusion as to not mislead people!

8

Vera Yang

为啥只给大窗口!

0

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
18565859
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"