Key result
Rhythm control was not associated with a significant difference in cardiovascular death, stroke, ACS, or heart failure compared to rate control (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.66-1.17; p=0.363).
Why the study?
It was unclear whether rhythm control data in AF registries is prognostically significant, prompting investigation into its relationship with cardiovascular outcomes in contemporary registry patients.
Does a rhythm control strategy improve cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes compared to rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation?
Cohort (n=6,670)
Does a rhythm control strategy improve cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes compared to rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation?
Hazard Ratio: 0.87 (95% CI 0.66–1.17)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.4% vs 1.5%
p-value: p=0.363
In patients with established atrial fibrillation (mostly enrolled >3 months post-diagnosis), a rhythm control strategy did not significantly improve cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes compared to rate control.
Supports equipoise between rhythm and rate control in anticoagulated AF; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background: It is not clear whether the data regarding rhythm control during atrial fibrillation (AF) contained in AF registries is prognostically significant. Thus, this study investigated the relationship between rhythm control and cardiovascular outcomes in patients in contemporary AF registries. Methods: This study was conducted using data from 6670 patients with AF receiving oral anticoagulation in the CODE-AF registry. We used propensity overlap weighting to account for differences in baseline characteristics between the rhythm control and rate control groups. The primary outcome was a composite of the rate of death due to cardiovascular causes, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure. The secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome. Results: In the CODE-AF registry, 5407 (81.1%) patients were enrolled three months after AF diagnosis. During a median follow-up period of 973 days (interquartile range: 755–1089 days), a primary outcome event occurred in 72 patients in the rhythm control group (1.4 events per 100 person-years) and in 211 patients in the rate control group (1.8 events per 100 person-years). However, after overlap weighting, the incidence rates were 1.4 and 1.5 events per 100 person-years, respectively. No significant difference was found in either the primary outcome (weighted HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.66–1.17; p = 0.363) or secondary outcomes between the rhythm control and rate control groups. Conclusion: In a prospective AF registry in which most of the population was enrolled at least three months after AF diagnosis, no difference in the risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes was found between the rhythm control and rate control groups, suggesting the early rhythm control should be considered to improve the outcome of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chung et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=6,670). Rhythm control vs. Rate control was evaluated on Composite of death due to cardiovascular causes, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, and heart failure (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.363). Rhythm control was not associated with a significant difference in cardiovascular death, stroke, ACS, or heart failure compared to rate control (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.66-1.17; p=0.363).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: