Key result
Rate control was more cost-effective than rhythm control for persistent atrial fibrillation, with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality occurring in 17.5% vs 21.2% of patients.
Why the study?
Is a rate control strategy more cost-effective than a rhythm control strategy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Population
428 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (prospective substudy of the RACE trial)
Comparison
Rate control strategy vs Rhythm control strategy
Design
RCT
Follow-up
mean 2.3+/-0.6 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports rate control as preferred strategy in persistent AF; reinforces RCT evidence on cost and outcomes.
RCT (n=428)
Is a rate control strategy more cost-effective than a rhythm control strategy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 17.5% vs 21.2%
A rate control strategy is more cost-effective than rhythm control for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, primarily due to fewer cardioversions, hospital admissions, and anti-arrhythmic medications.
Hagens et al. (2004) conducted an RCT in persistent atrial fibrillation (n=428). Rate control vs. Rhythm control was evaluated on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Rate control was more cost-effective than rhythm control for persistent atrial fibrillation, with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality occurring in 17.5% vs 21.2% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: