Key result
Rate versus rhythm control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation were evaluated in an evidence-based review of five recent randomized trials to provide guidance for routine clinical practice.
Why the study?
Does a rate control strategy compare favorably to a rhythm control strategy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
Does a rate control strategy compare favorably to a rhythm control strategy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
This review summarizes evidence from five recent randomized trials to guide the choice between rate and rhythm control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports individualized rate-rhythm decisions in persistent AF; leaves open optimal strategy selection without updated patient-level meta-analysis.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained tachyarrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, with the majority of patients aged > 65 years. With an increasingly ageing population, the burden of AF in society continues to rise. One of the principal controversies in AF management is whether to control the ventricular rate and accept the underlying rhythm, or to attempt to achieve sinus rhythm. Until recently there were no clinical trial data directly comparing a rate versus rhythm strategy, and most physicians have opted for rhythm control, based on its theoretical benefits. We present an up-to-date evidence-based overview of the relative merits of rate versus rhythm control in AF, including data from five recent randomized trials. We draw conclusions from these studies and present evidence-based guidance on when to adopt which approach in routine clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boos et al. (2003) conducted a review in Persistent atrial fibrillation. Rate control vs. Rhythm control was evaluated. Rate versus rhythm control strategies in persistent atrial fibrillation were evaluated in an evidence-based review of five recent randomized trials to provide guidance for routine clinical practice.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: