Comparison of rate and rhythm control in hypertension patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a very common cardiac arrhythmia, and is associated with an increased mortality in patients with hypertension. Whether the best therapeutic approach for these patients is to restore sinus rhythm (SR) or to adequately control the ventricular rate is still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare both strategies in patients with hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-one patients with hypertension and AF of duration >48 h were randomly assigned to either the rhythm (n=155) or rate (n=66) control group. Exercise capacity was improved in the rhythm control group in the 1st year of the study (p<0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in the embolic event rate and the total mortality between the 2 groups at the end of the study (p=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Although restoring and maintaining SR had a beneficial effect on exercise capacity in patients with hypertension and AF, no significant difference was found in terms of the total mortality and the embolic event rates. Thus, rate control is an acceptable primary strategy in patients with AF and hypertension.     

二尖瓣置换术后患者持续性心房颤动心率控制与节律控制的对比分析

目的 研究风湿性心脏病(风心病)二尖瓣置换术后心率控制与节律控制对患者远期预后的影响.方法 本试验采用回顾性分析.选择2006年在我院择期行二尖瓣置换术的患者197例,按术后心律情况分为窦性心律组(n=100)和心房颤动(房颤)组(n=97).收集患者基本资料,以患者手术结束为试验起始时间,随访术后发生脑卒中及心脏性死...     

Comparison of rate and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and nonischemic heart failure

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a very common cardiac arrhythmia with an increased mortality in patients with heart failure. Whether the best therapeutic approach to these patients is to restore sinus rhythm or to adequately control the ventricular rate is still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare both strategies in patients with AF and nonischemic heart failure. One hundred and fifty-four patients with AF duration greater than 48 hours and nonischemic left ventricular dysfunction were randomized either to a rhythm (n = 84) or rate (n = 74) control group. The composite end points of the study were embolism, death, and exercise capacity. The average age of the patients was 61 +/- 10 years in the rhythm control group and 58 +/- 12 years in the rate control group (P = NS). The average follow-up period was 35 +/- 21 months in the rhythm control group and 37 +/- 19 months in the rate control group (P = NS). In the first year of the study, exercise capacity and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were improved in the rhythm control group compared to the exercise capacity and LVEF of the rate control group (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the embolic event rate between the two groups (P = NS). The mortality rate, especially for death due to pump failure, was significantly higher in the rate control group at the end of the study (P < 0.0001). Restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm had a beneficial effect on mortality and exercise capacity in patients with nonischemic heart failure and AF.     

心房颤动中的室率控制和节律控制策略

目的 室率控制和节律控制是临床治疗心房颤动(房颤)的两种基本策略.为了进一步比较两种治疗策略在不同人群中的获益,该研究入选了10个前瞻性随机临床研究进行荟萃分析.方法 以房颤、室率控制、节律控制、随机对照试验为检索词,对MEDLINE、The Cochrane Library、The Clinical Trials 和中国维普期刊数据库进行系统检索,检索截止时间为2010年5月31日.结果 该研究总入选人群7876例,3932例分布在室率控制组,3944例分布在节律控制组.结果显示,在总体年龄中,室率控制组的住院率明显低于节律控制组(17.56％与22.98％,OR:0.37,95％ CI:0.19～0.71);而在平均年龄＜65岁的亚组人群中,室率控制组的总病死率(3.6％与1.9％,OR:1.89,95％CI:1.01～3.53)和进行性加重的心力衰竭事件(2.3％与0.3％,OR:5.6,95％ CI:1.44～21.69)明显高于节律控制组.而对于血栓栓塞事件和出血事件,在总体人群和亚组人群中,两组之间差异无统计学意义.结论研究结果提示,对于相对年轻的房颤患者,节律控制策略可能优于室率控制策略.     

心房颤动节律控制与心室率控制之争:风波再起?

心房颤动(房颤)是最常见的持续性心律失常,转复并维持窦性心律是理想的治疗目标.但是,6年前AFFIRM试验显示房颤的治疗选择节律控制和心室率控制死亡率差异无统计学意义[1],一时间传统的思维定式受到严重的冲击.对AFFIRM研究深入分析发现,部分患者停用抗凝药物降低了从窦性心律中的获益,窦性心律仍是死亡率的独立相关因素.AFFIRM试验的结果再次强调了抗凝治疗的重要性,此后制定的房颤指南明确指出无论采用节律控制还是心室率控制都是以个体化的抗凝治疗为基础.那么,在应用抗凝药物的前提下,节律控制与心室率控制孰优孰劣呢?而以导管消融作为节律控制的手段又将会怎样影响房颤的治疗策略呢?     

Pacing delivered rate and rhythm control for atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Device therapy for atrial fibrillation remains contentious despite the recognized benefit of atrial pacing in sinus node dysfunction. There are various new specialized pacing algorithms that aim to provide rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation. We review the various options for device therapy and the evidence available concerning their effectiveness. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized trials on preventative algorithms for atrial fibrillation have not shown consistent benefit. Anti-tachycardia pacing for atrial fibrillation has inherent problems illustrated in this review and has failed to demonstrate objective improvement except in the case of atrial flutter. Several large randomized trials have demonstrated an adverse outcome with right ventricular apical pacing. These studies have shown an increase in atrial fibrillation with ventricular pacing. Recent studies have emphasised the importance of right ventricular apical pacing in burden of atrial fibrillation and therefore we discuss the likely confounding effect on previous trials and speculate on future directions. SUMMARY: The use of a device with atrial fibrillation prevention algorithms in a patient with a bradycardia indication for pacing is not unreasonable but there is no hard evidence of benefit. Patients with sinus node dysfunction should be paced in the atrium alone. There is no indication for use of a device for atrial fibrillation without a conventional indication for pacing.     

Pharmacological rhythm versus rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: the CASTLE-AF trial

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology - The value of antiarrhythmics to maintain normal sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) is still being...     

Comparison of rate versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (from the AFFIRM Study)

Optimal treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is not well defined. It is unclear if sinus rhythm is of greater benefit in patients with significantly reduced ejection fraction (EF) than in patients with normal or mildly depressed LV function. The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study compared 2 treatment strategies: "rhythm control," attempting to maintain sinus rhythm, principally with antiarrhythmic drugs, and "rate control," allowing AF to persist or recur while controlling the ventricular rate. We sought to determine if rhythm control was superior to rate control for patients in the AFFIRM study with various degrees of LV dysfunction. The present study analyzed outcome data of 3,032 subjects from the AFFIRM study with LV dysfunction by 3 EF strata: 40% to 49%, 30% to 39%, and <30%. The end points were mortality, hospitalization, and a change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Analyses were done by intent to treat and by final rhythm status. In conclusion, there was no significant improvement in mortality, hospitalization, and NYHA class with the strategy of rhythm control in any of the 3 EF strata. When the data were analyzed by final rhythm status, we again found no significant benefit to patients in the rhythm control arm.     

Rate versus rhythm control in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation

The management of patients with atrial fibrillation involves three main areas: anticoagulation, rate control and rhythm control. Importantly, these are not mutually exclusive of each other. Anticoagulation is necessary for patients who are at a high risk of stroke; for example, those who are older than 75 years, or those who have hypertension, severe left ventricular dysfunction, previous cerebrovascular events, or diabetes. It is now clear that patients who are at a high risk of stroke require long-term anticoagulation with warfarin regardless of whether a rate-control or rhythm-control strategy is chosen. One possible exception might be patients who are apparently cured with catheter ablation. Several published trials comparing rate-control and rhythm-control strategies for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation have shown no difference in mortality between these approaches. The patients enrolled in these studies were typically over 65 years of age. Data comparing rate and rhythm strategies in patients who are younger than 60 years of age are limited. For more elderly patients, it seems reasonable to consider rate control as a primary treatment option and to reserve rhythm control for those who do not respond to rate control. For younger patients, we prefer to start with a rhythm-control approach and to reserve rate-control approaches for patients in whom antiarrhythmic drugs, ablation, or both, do not ameliorate the symptoms.     

节律控制与心率控制治疗对合并房颤的射血分数保留心衰患者的预后效果比较

目的 比较节律控制与心率控制治疗对合并心房颤动(AF)的射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)患者的预后效果.方法 回顾性收集2017年1月至2019年9月安徽医科大学附属省立医院收治的150例合并AF的HFpEF患者的临床资料.根据患者治疗意愿分为节律控制组(接受节律控制治疗方案,75例)和心率控制组(接受心率控制治疗...     

Congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation: rhythm versus rate control

BACKGROUND: The incidence both of heart failure and atrial fibrillation is steadily increasing in the United States' population, and these conditions frequently coexist in the same patient. It is likely that the onset of one of these disorders leads to the onset and propagation of the other through multiple mechanisms. Several studies have investigated the prognosis of patients with both conditions, but a definitive conclusion regarding outcomes such as mortality and quality of life has yet to be determined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Evidence demonstrating the improvement of left ventricular function and other hemodynamic parameters with the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm does exist. beta-blockade, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition, and aldosterone antagonism have been shown to improve survival in patients with heart failure. However, the efficacy of these therapies in patients with coexisting atrial fibrillation has not been adequately assessed. Furthermore, these therapies do not directly address the issue of rhythm management. The use of several antiarrhythmic medications and device therapy is becoming more frequent in the management of this subset of patients. Recent investigations of antiarrhythmic treatment have assessed outcomes such as survival, quality of life, exercise tolerance, and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Data from these studies suggest that antiarrhythmic therapy may be efficacious in such patients. Device therapy is another alternative which has been demonstrated to be at least as beneficial as medical therapy. CONCLUSION: Both retrospective and prospective studies of antiarrhythmic therapy and device therapy have demonstrated promising results. Several studies are ongoing and will provide more insight into the management of such patients.     

Rhythm-independent feature of heart rate dynamics common to atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES: To examine if the long-range correlation in heart rate variability is a rhythm-independent characteristic common to both atrial fibrillation (AF) and sinus rhythm (SR) periods in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). METHODS: Holter electrocardiography was analyzed during sleep in 18 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation during the atrial fibrillation (PAF-AF) and sinus rhythm (PAF-SR) periods, and also in 19 healthy controls with sinus rhythm (CTR-SR). The heart rate dynamics were assessed with the power-law spectral exponent (slope) of the log-log power spectrum between 0.0001 Hz and the breakpoint frequency. RESULTS: The slope showed a significant correlation between PAF-SR and PAF-AF (r = 0.614, p < 0.01). During sinus rhythm, the slope in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with cardiovascular disease [PAF-SR (cvd+)] was steeper than that in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation without cardiovascular disease [PAF-SR (cvd-)] (p < 0.05). Although the slope was comparable between PAF-SR (cvd-) and CTR-SR, the slope in PAF-SR (cvd+) was steeper than that in CTR-SR (p < 0.05). A similar tendency was shown during atrial fibrillation. The slope in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with cardiovascular disease [PAF-AF (cvd+)] was steeper than that in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation without cardiovascular disease [PAF-AF (cvd-)] (p < 0.05). Although the slope was comparable between PAF-AF (cvd-) and CTR-SR, the slope in PAF-AF (cvd+) tended to be steeper than that in CTR-SR. CONCLUSIONS: The long-range correlation in heart rate variability during sleep was a rhythm-independent characteristic and so may have a similar clinical value during atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.     

Rate vs rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The 2 fundamental approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are reestablishing and maintaining sinus rhythm (rhythm control) and controlling ventricular rate with atrioventricular node blocking agents (rate control). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing these strategies in patients with AF to add precision to the relative merits of both strategies on the risk of all-cause mortality and to evaluate the consistency of the results between trials. METHODS: We performed a literature search in MEDLINE (1966 to May 2003), the Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry (first quarter of 2003), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to May 2003). Eligible trials were randomized controlled trials comparing pharmacologic rhythm and rate control strategies as first-line therapy in patients with AF. RESULTS: Five trials were identified that included a total of 5,239 patients with persistent AF or AF that was considered likely to be recurrent. No significant difference was observed between the rate and the rhythm control groups regarding all-cause mortality, although a strong trend in favor of a rate control approach was observed (13.0% vs 14.6%; odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.02; P=.09). No heterogeneity was apparent between the trials (Q value=2.97; P=.56). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistent AF or with AF that is likely to be recurrent, a strategy of ventricular rate control, in combination with anticoagulation in appropriate patients, appears to be at least equivalent to a strategy of maintaining sinus rhythm by using currently available antiarrhythmic drugs in preventing clinical outcomes.