Medical rhythm control was associated with a minimally greater improvement in atrial fibrillation symptom severity scores compared to rate control over 1 year (adjusted difference -0.71; P=0.02).
Observational (n=2,439)
Does medical rhythm control improve health-related quality of life compared to rate control in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation?
Medical rhythm control provides a statistically significant but clinically minimal improvement in quality of life compared to rate control at 1 year in patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation.
Mean Difference: -0.71 (95% CI -1.31–-0.11)
Absolute Event Rate: -2.82% vs -2.11%
p-value: p=0.02
BACKGROUND: Improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important treatment goal in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Uncertainty exists as to whether patients' HRQoL differ when treated with medical rhythm control or rate control. We compared HRQoL between patients treated with rhythm control or rate control in a large observational registry of patients with recent-onset AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Registry on Cardiac Rhythm Disorders Assessing the Control of Atrial Fibrillation (RECORD-AF), 2439 patients with recent onset (<1 year) AF completed an AF-specific HRQoL questionnaire, the University of Toronto Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale. HRQoL was assessed by the AF symptom severity score (0-35, with higher scores reflecting more severe AF-related symptoms) at baseline and 1 year. The minimal clinically important difference was defined as a change of ≥3 points. The primary analysis was based on a propensity score-adjusted longitudinal regression analysis which compared the change in AF symptom severity scores between the 2 groups. Over an average follow-up of 1 year, the AF symptom severity scores improved in both groups (rhythm control: -2.82 point 95% confidence interval, -3.22 to -2.41; rate control: -2.11 point 95% confidence interval, -2.54 to -1.67; P<0.01 for both groups). The magnitude of improvement was higher in the rhythm control group than the rate control group (unadjusted difference: -0.75 point; 95% confidence interval, -1.31 to -0.19; P=0.01; propensity score-adjusted difference: -0.71 point; 95% confidence interval, -1.31 to -0.11; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational cohort of recent-onset AF patients, treatment with medical rhythm- or rate control over 1 year was associated with an improvement in HRQoL. The magnitude of HRQoL improvement was minimally higher in patients treated with rhythm control than rate control. However, the overall degree of improvement was not large, and its clinical significance was uncertain.
Ha et al. (Sat,) conducted a observational in Recent-onset atrial fibrillation (n=2,439). Medical rhythm control vs. Rate control was evaluated on Change in AF symptom severity scores (MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.11, p=0.02). Medical rhythm control was associated with a minimally greater improvement in atrial fibrillation symptom severity scores compared to rate control over 1 year (adjusted difference -0.71; P=0.02).