Why the study?
Does a rhythm-control strategy reduce cause-specific mortality compared to a rate-control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Population
4,060 patients with atrial fibrillation enrolled in the AFFIRM study
Comparison
Rhythm-control strategy vs Rate-control strategy
Design
RCT, randomized, blinded review by the AFFIRM Events Committee
Follow-up
mean 3.5 years
Authors
Loading...
Rhythm control raises noncardiovascular mortality without reducing cardiovascular deaths in AF; challenges routine use and leaves mechanisms open for study.
Does a rhythm-control strategy reduce cause-specific mortality compared to a rate-control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
In patients with atrial fibrillation, a rhythm-control strategy does not improve cardiovascular mortality but may increase noncardiovascular deaths compared to rate control.
Steinberg et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: