This consensus document provides expert perspectives on the early and comprehensive management of atrial fibrillation, highlighting the need for improved therapeutic strategies.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is already an endemic disease, and its prevalence is soaring, due to both an increasing incidence of the arrhythmia and an age-related increase in its prevalence. Indeed, 1–2% of the population suffer from AF at present, and the number of affected individuals is expected to double or triple within the next two to three decades both in Europe and in the USA.1–4 Although epidemiological data for other parts of the world are less robust, a similar increase in AF in the community can be assumed in other countries. Atrial fibrillation causes marked morbidity and mortality on a population basis. Epidemiological observations suggest that AF is still associated with a doubling of mortality, even after adjustment for confounders.2,5 This observation from the last millennium appears to continue into current randomized trials in AF patients. Also, AF is the single most important risk factor for ischaemic stroke. Furthermore, strokes associated with AF result more often in death or permanent disability than strokes that occur as a result of other aetiologies.6–9 The presence of AF is also associated with a marked reduction in everyday functioning and quality of life.10–13 The harm associated with AF and the perceived detrimental effects of the arrhythmia on general health contrast with the outcome of six trials that compared a ‘rate control’ therapy strategy, aiming at accepting AF and controlling the ventricular rate, with an antiarrrhythmic drug-based ‘rhythm control’ therapy strategy, aiming at maintenance of the ‘natural’ sinus rhythm. Apart from a slight improvement in 6 min walk test in a small trial14 and post hoc analyses,15 the outcome of patients randomized to rhythm control therapy was not better than patients randomized to rate control therapy,14,16–20 …
Kirchhof et al. (Tue,) studied this question.