Key result
Rate control remains the front-line strategy for older, minimally symptomatic AF patients.
Why the study?
Ventricular rate control remains the preferred treatment strategy for AF despite advances in rhythm control therapies with limited long-term efficacy and safety data.
Rate control remains convenient for AF; leaves open whether newer antiarrhythmics meaningfully alter outcomes in elderly patients.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, which is associated with substantial risk of stroke and thromboembolism. As an arrhythmia that is particularly common in the elderly, it is an important contributor towards morbidity and mortality. Ventricular rate control has been a preferred and therapeutically convenient treatment strategy for the management of AF. Recent research in the field of rhythm control has led to the advent of newer antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation techniques as newer therapeutic options. Currently available antiarrhythmic drugs still remain limited by their suboptimal efficacy and significant adverse effects. Catheter ablation as a newer modality to achieve sinus rhythm (SR) continues to evolve, but data on long-term outcomes on its efficacy and mortality outcomes are not yet available. Despite these current developments, rate control continues to be the front-line treatment strategy, especially in older and minimally symptomatic patients who might not tolerate the antiarrhythmic drug treatment. This review article discusses the current evidence and recommendations for ventricular rate control in the management of AF. We also highlight the considerations for rhythm control strategy in the management of patients of AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maan et al. (2013) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Ventricular rate control vs. Rhythm control was evaluated. Ventricular rate control continues to be the front-line treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation, especially in older and minimally symptomatic patients who might not tolerate antiarrhythmic drugs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: