Rhythm control versus rate control, Antiarrhythmic versus control: study Excluded of the Systematic review
DISEASE INTERVENTION COMPARISON RESULTS
Am Heart J. 2002 Oct;144(4):597-607 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN Study ID: AF-CHF 2008 (subordinated publication), atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy, heart failure, chronic, systolic The Use of
rhythm control: electrical cardioversion combined with antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or other class III agents)
As Treatment, Chronic
Is undefined Than
rate control
To primary end point : cardiovascular mortality (protocol for a RCT)
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jun 19;358(25):2667-77 Randomized Controlled Trial, Multicenter Study
IN Study ID: AF-CHF 2008, atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy, heart failure, chronic, systolic The Use of
rate control strategy
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rhythm control strategy
To modify death from cardiovascular causes (25% rate-control VS 27% rhythm-control) or reduce stroke (4% rate-control VS 3% rhythm-control) or worsening heart failure (31% rate-control VS 28% rhythm-control)
Circ J. 2009 Feb;73(2):242-8 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN Study ID: J-RHYTHM 2009, atrial fibrillation, persistent, rate control strategy The Use of
rate control strategy
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rhythm control
To modify mortality and cardiovascular morbidity at 1.5 years
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
Pol Arch Med Wewn. 1999 May;101(5):413-8 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN StudyID: HOT-CAFE 2004 (subordinated publication), atrial fibrillation, persistent The Use of
various antiarrhythmics
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rate control
To mortality, stroke, heart failure, AF recurrence, adverse effects - at 1 year
Eur Heart J. 2003 Aug;24(15):1430-6 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN StudyID: PIAF 2000 (subordinated publication), atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy, functional status The Use of
rhythm control strategy (amiodarone)
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rate control strategy (verapamil and anticoagulation)
To impact on quality of life - at 1 year
Lancet. 2000 Nov 25;356(9244):1789-94 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN StudyID: PIAF 2000, atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy The Use of
rhythm control strategy (amiodarone)
As Treatment, Acute
Is equal Than
rate control strategy (verapamil and anticoagulation)
To improvement in symptoms related to atrial fibrillation. Exercise tolerance is better with rhythm control, although hospital admission is more frequent. Only 23% patients in amiodarone were in sinus rhythm at 1 year.
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
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 May 21;41(10):1690-6 Randomized Controlled Trial
IN StudyID: STAF 2003, atrial fibrillation, rate control strategy The Use of
rate control strategy (pharmacologic or invasive rate-control and anticoagulation)
As Treatment, Chronic
Is equal Than
rhythm control strategy (restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm)
To combined major cardiovascular events (death, heart arrest, stroke, and systemic embolism): 6.09%/year in rate-c vs 5.54%/year in rhythm-c. Patients in sinus rhythm at 3 years were 0% in rate-c vs 23% in rhythm-c