Key result
In male patients with atrial fibrillation, the use of rate control compared with rhythm control was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (aHR 2.06).
Why the study?
Gender-related differences in treatment patterns and their prognostic value in patients with atrial fibrillation needed assessment.
Does rhythm control compared to rate control improve outcomes differently in male versus female hospitalized patients with comorbid atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,140)
No
Does rhythm control compared to rate control improve outcomes differently in male versus female hospitalized patients with comorbid atrial fibrillation?
Hazard Ratio: 2.06 (95% CI 1.24–3.41)
In hospitalized patients with comorbid atrial fibrillation, males may derive a survival benefit from rhythm control, whereas females may have better outcomes with rate control.
Gender-specific AF treatment associations warrant clinical caution; leaves open need for prospective sex-stratified trials.
Purpose To assess the gender-related differences in the treatment patterns of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and their prognostic value. Methods In this post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, 1140 hospitalized patients with comorbid AF were followed-up for a median of 2.6 years. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox-regression analyses assessed the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for outcomes in males and females, according to oral anticoagulation (OAC) type (vitamin K antagonist or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants), rhythm or rate control treatment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcomes were stroke and the composite of any hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Results Among 622 males and 518 females, use of OAC (61% vs 62%), rate control (56% vs 57%), and rhythm control (31% vs 28%) treatments was similar (all p>0.05). In males, use of rate control, as compared with rhythm control, was independently associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality (aHR=2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-3.41) and the composite of hospitalization or cardiovascular death (aHR=1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.85). In females, use of rhythm control was significantly associated with higher rates of hospitalization-or cardiovascular mortality (aHR=1.74, 95% CI 1.03-2.94). Among genders, stroke rates were similar regardless of OAC type, rate or rhythm control treatment. Conclusions In patients discharged from the hospital with comorbid AF, the use of OAC, rhythm or rate control treatment was similar among genders. However, males seemed to benefit more from rhythm, whereas females from rate control treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vouloagkas et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Atrial Fibrillation (n=1,140). Rate control vs. Rhythm control was evaluated on All-cause mortality in males (aHR 2.06, 95% CI 1.24-3.41). In male patients with atrial fibrillation, the use of rate control compared with rhythm control was independently associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (aHR 2.06).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: