Why the study?
Does cardioversion with or without antiarrhythmic therapy improve cost-effectiveness compared to rate control with antithrombotic treatment in 70-year-old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Population
Hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with different baseline…
Comparison
Therapeutic strategies using different… vs Rate control with antithrombotic treatment.
Design
Other
Follow-up
3 months
Authors
Loading...
May support repeated cardioversion plus amiodarone on relapse as cost-effective in high-risk AF; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Does cardioversion with or without antiarrhythmic therapy improve cost-effectiveness compared to rate control with antithrombotic treatment in 70-year-old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Cardioversion alone followed by repeated cardioversion plus low-dose amiodarone on relapse is a cost-effective initial management strategy for persistent nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in patients at moderate to high risk for ischemic stroke.
Edward Catherwood (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: