Key result
Strict rate control in permanent AF is linked to better quality of life than lenient control.
Why the study?
The optimal level of heart rate control in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and its effect on exercise capacity and quality of life was unknown.
Cross-Sectional (n=143)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 356.2% vs 318.2%
p-value: p=0.001
May support strict rate control for QoL in permanent AF; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The optimal level of heart rate (HR) control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. To assess the effect of rate control on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL) in permanent AF. METHODS: One hundred forty-three patients with permanent AF were enrolled in this study. All patients received rate control medications and were followed up for 1 year. After 1-year therapy, the exercise capacity and QoL were evaluated by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, respectively. Data were compared by dividing the patients according to the following criteria: (1) whether the resting HR was ≤80 or > 80 bpm; (2) whether the exercise HR during moderate exercises on CPET was ≤110 or > 110 bpm; and (3) whether the resting HR was ≤80 bpm and exercise HR was ≤110 bpm. RESULTS: No significant differences in peak oxygen uptake, peak metabolic equivalent, and anaerobic threshold were found between the strict control and lenient control groups. Both physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) were significantly higher for the strict rate control group than for the lenient control group. The single-factor correlation analysis revealed a negative correlation between resting HR and both PCS and MCS. The multivariable linear regression analysis indicated that both exercise HR and duration of AF linearly correlated with PCS and MCS. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, in patients with permanent AF, exercise capacity may not be affected by the stringency of rate control, and strict rate control may be associated with better QoL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
She et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Permanent atrial fibrillation (n=143). Strict heart rate control (resting HR ≤80 bpm) vs. Lenient heart rate control (resting HR >80 bpm) was evaluated on Physical component summary (PCS) score on the SF-36 questionnaire (p=0.001). Strict heart rate control in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation was associated with significantly higher physical and mental quality of life scores compared to lenient control, but did not significantly affect cardiopulmonary exercise capacity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: