Key result
Rhythm control using amiodarone and cardioversion improved LV function (p=0.014), NT-proBNP (p=0.046), and QoL (p=0.019) compared to rate control in patients with heart failure and persistent AF.
Why the study?
Does a rhythm control strategy improve cardiac function, symptoms, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and persistent atrial fibrillation compared to rate control?
RCT (n=61)
randomly assigned
Does a rhythm control strategy improve cardiac function, symptoms, exercise capacity, and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and persistent atrial fibrillation compared to rate control?
In patients with heart failure and persistent atrial fibrillation, a rhythm control strategy using amiodarone and cardioversion improves left ventricular function, NT-proBNP levels, and quality of life compared to rate control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports rhythm control in HF with persistent AF; extends randomized evidence for LV and QoL benefits versus rate control.
Shelton et al. (2009) conducted an RCT in chronic atrial fibrillation and heart failure (n=61). Rhythm control (amiodarone and biphasic external cardioversion) vs. Rate control (beta blockers and/or digoxin) was evaluated on Cardiac function, symptoms, exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL). Rhythm control using amiodarone and cardioversion improved LV function (p=0.014), NT-proBNP (p=0.046), and QoL (p=0.019) compared to rate control in patients with heart failure and persistent AF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: