Why the study?
Do rate-control agents improve symptoms and reduce adverse cardiovascular events compared to rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Do rate-control agents improve symptoms and reduce adverse cardiovascular events compared to rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Rate control is widely accepted and preferred by most physicians as initial therapy for atrial fibrillation to improve symptoms and reduce adverse events.
Rate control remains preferred initial AF strategy; literature review leaves open need for updated comparative trials.
Untreated atrial fibrillation is usually associated with a rapid, irregular ventricular response and is often accompanied by symptoms including palpitations, fatigue, dyspnea, and dizziness. It is widely accepted that slowing the ventricular response, both at rest and during activity, with the use of drugs that prolong the refractory period of the atrioventricular (AV) node (so-called rate-control agents) will result in an improvement in symptoms and most likely reduce the future risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The strategy of rate control is preferred by most physicians to the strategy of rhythm control as initial therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation,1 given . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul Dorian (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: