Key result
Rhythm control shows no long-term benefit over rate control in acute AF.
Why the study?
Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia leading to hospital admission, and optimal management and risk stratification strategies in the acute setting require clarification.
Individualize acute AF care by etiology and symptom duration; leaves open whether rate or rhythm control alters long-term outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review aims to describe the scope of the problem and potential therapeutic intervention for the management and risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation in the emergency department and acute care setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia prompting admission to the hospital. Management strategies include determining the trigger of the arrhythmia, rate control, and potential cardioversion. In the acute care setting the treatment is often dependent on the timing of the onset of arrhythmia. In those patients presenting with symptoms of less than 48 h of duration management may consist of rate control, pharmacologic, or electrical cardioversion. Recent studies suggest no difference in long-term outcomes with rate and rhythm control. In patients with symptoms greater that 48 h rate control is the initial option with potential for cardioversion as an outpatient. There are recent advances in ablation that provide additional options to patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. An essential component of the treatment strategy for these patients is risk stratification for stroke and the initiation of long-term anticoagulation in appropriate patients. SUMMARY: Management of atrial fibrillation is guided by underlying causes of the atrial fibrillation and duration of symptoms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chenoweth et al. (2012) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Management strategies (rate control, rhythm control, cardioversion, anticoagulation) was evaluated. Management of atrial fibrillation in the acute setting is guided by underlying causes and duration of symptoms, with recent studies suggesting no difference in long-term outcomes between rate and rhythm control.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: