Why the study?
Does a rhythm control strategy compared to a rate control strategy improve a composite of mortality and physical/psychological disablement in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does a rhythm control strategy compared to a rate control strategy improve a composite of mortality and physical/psychological disablement in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation?
The J-RHYTHM study protocol outlines a randomized trial comparing rate versus rhythm control in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation, uniquely incorporating patient-reported disablement into the primary composite endpoint.
May prioritize patient-centered outcomes in AF care; extends rate-rhythm trials by incorporating disablement into primary endpoints.
The Japanese Rhythm Management Trial for Atrial Fibrillation (J-RHYTHM study) is a randomized comparative evaluation of rate control and rhythm control, both combined with antithrombotic therapy, as therapeutic strategies for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study differs from the earlier AFFIRM and RACE studies in that it has a composite primary end-point representing mortality and also physical/psychological disablement (total mortality, symptomatic cerebral infarction, systemic embolism, major bleeding, hospitalization for heart failure requiring intravenous administration of diuretics, and patient disablement). Patients' will to change the therapeutic strategy to the other is also considered as an end-point representing disablement under the assigned strategy. The secondary end-point includes quality of life scores and the efficacy and safety of drugs used in treating AF. The J-RHYTHM study emphasizes patient-reported experience and perception of AF-specific disablement, and the safety of antiarrhythmics available in Japan; it will follow 2600 patients treated at more than 150 sites in Japan for a 3-year period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamashita et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: