Key result
Rhythm control linked to ~9 mL/m² lower follow-up LAVI vs. rate control.
Why the study?
Evidence regarding left atrial remodeling with pharmacological rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation outside heart-failure-specific populations remains limited.
Does pharmacological rhythm control prevent left atrial remodeling compared to rate control in adults with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=156)
No
Does pharmacological rhythm control prevent left atrial remodeling compared to rate control in adults with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation?
Mean Difference: -9.38 (95% CI -15.53–-3.24)
Absolute Event Rate: 43.4% vs 50.3%
p-value: p=0.003
Pharmacological rhythm control is associated with the prevention of progressive left atrial structural enlargement and a lower hazard of adverse clinical outcomes compared with rate control in paroxysmal and persistent AF.
Should not yet change AF rate vs rhythm decisions; leaves open whether remodeling benefit holds in randomized trials.
Purpose Evidence regarding left atrial (LA) remodeling with pharmacological rhythm control remains limited, particularly in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) outside heart‐failure‐specific populations. Methods This single‐center retrospective cohort included 156 adults with paroxysmal or persistent AF receiving mutually exclusive pharmacological rate‐control ( n = 92) or rhythm‐control ( n = 64) therapy who underwent two transthoracic echocardiograms. LA remodeling was assessed using serial echocardiography, and clinical outcomes were evaluated after the second examination. Results Among 74 patients with paired left atrial volume index (LAVI) measurements, LAVI increased from 39.9 to 50.3 mL/m 2 with rate control ( p < 0.001) but remained unchanged with rhythm control (44.9 to 43.4 mL/m 2 ; p = 0.465). After adjustment for baseline LAVI and clinical covariates, rhythm control was associated with a 9.38 mL/m 2 lower follow‐up LAVI (95% CI, ‐15.53 to ‐3.24; p = 0.003). The association with lower follow‐up LAVI was also observed among patients without heart failure and remained similar in sensitivity analyses. During post‐landmark follow‐up, rhythm control was associated with a lower hazard of all‐cause mortality or stroke hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.88; p = 0.019). Conclusion Pharmacological rhythm control was associated with more favorable longitudinal LA remodeling than rate control, including among patients without heart failure, and was also associated with a lower hazard of subsequent all‐cause mortality or stroke hospitalization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chien et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (n=156). Pharmacological rhythm control vs. Pharmacological rate control was evaluated on Longitudinal left atrial remodeling (follow-up left atrial volume index) (MD -9.38, 95% CI -15.53 to -3.24, p=0.003). Pharmacological rhythm control was associated with a 9.38 mL/m² lower follow-up left atrial volume index compared to rate control, indicating more favorable longitudinal structural remodeling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: