rate control strategy (drugs and anticoagulation)
DISEASE INTERVENTION COMPARISON RESULTS
N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5;347(23):1825-33 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN StudyID: AFFIRM 2002, atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy The Use of
rate control strategy (drugs and anticoagulation)
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rhythm control strategy (cardioversion and antiarrhythmics, anticoagulation recommended)
To overall mortality: 4,26%/year in rate-c vs 4,76%/year in rhythm-c. More patients in rhythm-c were hospitalized and suffered adverse drug effects
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Feb 14;165(3):258-62 Meta-Analysis
IN StudyID: Denus 2005, atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy The Use of
rate control strategy (drugs and anticoagulation)
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rhythm control strategy (cardioversion and antiarrhythmics)
To reduce all-cause mortality: 14.6% rhythm-control vs 13.0% rate-control. A trend existed in favour of rate-control: OR 0.87; 95%CI 0.74-1.02
N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 5;347(23):1834-40 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN StudyID: RACE 2002, atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy The Use of
rate control strategy (drugs and anticoagulation)
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rhythm control strategy (electrical cardioversion and antiarrhythmics, anticoagulation recommended)
To combined events (cardiovascular death, heart failure, any embolism, bleeding, severe drug adverse effects, pacemaker): 3,44%/year in rate-c vs 4,52%/year in rhythm-c. Patients in sinus rhythm at 2,3 years were 10% in rate-c vs 39% in rhythm-c