Key result
Cardioversion confers no survival benefit compared with a rate-control strategy for atrial fibrillation, and oral anticoagulation must be maintained due to high relapse rates.
Why the study?
Does electrical cardioversion improve survival compared with a rate-control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does electrical cardioversion improve survival compared with a rate-control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cardioversion offers no survival advantage over rate control in atrial fibrillation and should be reserved for acute onset or highly symptomatic patients.
Favors symptom-guided cardioversion in AF; leaves open refinement of post-procedure anticoagulation strategies.
Electrical cardioversion was originally used for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias but has increasingly been used for atrial fibrillation in an attempt to restore sinus rhythm and correct the electrophysiological abnormalities associated with arrhythmias. Data have now accumulated demonstrating that cardioversion confers no survival benefit compared with a rate-control strategy and that even in patients who are successfully converted into sinus rhythm, oral anticoagulation needs to be maintained owing to the high rate of relapse. This is true for high-risk patients, such as those who also suffer from heart failure. Cardioversion should be reserved for patients with acute onset of atrial fibrillation and those who remain symptomatic despite medical therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DA Fitzmaurice (2010) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Cardioversion vs. Rate-control strategy was evaluated on Survival. Cardioversion confers no survival benefit compared with a rate-control strategy for atrial fibrillation, and oral anticoagulation must be maintained due to high relapse rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: