Shaojie Chen1, Yuehui Yin, Mitchell W Krucoff. 1. Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, 76# Linjiang Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400010, China. excellentchenshaojie@126.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rate- and rhythm control are two fundamental strategies to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are inconsistent results between clinical trials about which treatment should be preferred. The aims of this study were to systematically summarize the clinical trials and compare rate- and rhythm control strategies regarding composite outcome of all cause mortality, worsening heart failure, and thromboembolic and bleeding events. METHODS: English and non-English studies that were published from 1966 onwards were included in this meta-analysis if they were prospective randomized controlled trials which compared rate- and rhythm control strategies in patients with AF. The individual and combined outcomes were analyzed quantitatively with odds ratio and 95 % confidence interval. RESULTS: Ten prospective randomized controlled trials with 7,876 patients were identified. There was no significant difference regarding primary composite outcome (11.47 vs. 11.03 % per year; odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.90-1.20; P = 0.64) between rate- and rhythm control groups in overall age group. Meta-analysis for studies with mean age <65 years showed that rate control had significantly higher risk in primary composite outcome compared with rhythm control (8.74 vs. 4.80 % per year; OR, 1.89; 95 %CI, 1.26-2.86; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A significant trend towards that rhythm control may be a preferable strategy for younger AF patients was observed in this study.
PURPOSE: Rate- and rhythm control are two fundamental strategies to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are inconsistent results between clinical trials about which treatment should be preferred. The aims of this study were to systematically summarize the clinical trials and compare rate- and rhythm control strategies regarding composite outcome of all cause mortality, worsening heart failure, and thromboembolic and bleeding events. METHODS: English and non-English studies that were published from 1966 onwards were included in this meta-analysis if they were prospective randomized controlled trials which compared rate- and rhythm control strategies in patients with AF. The individual and combined outcomes were analyzed quantitatively with odds ratio and 95 % confidence interval. RESULTS: Ten prospective randomized controlled trials with 7,876 patients were identified. There was no significant difference regarding primary composite outcome (11.47 vs. 11.03 % per year; odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.90-1.20; P = 0.64) between rate- and rhythm control groups in overall age group. Meta-analysis for studies with mean age <65 years showed that rate control had significantly higher risk in primary composite outcome compared with rhythm control (8.74 vs. 4.80 % per year; OR, 1.89; 95 %CI, 1.26-2.86; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A significant trend towards that rhythm control may be a preferable strategy for younger AFpatients was observed in this study.
Authors: Isabelle C Van Gelder; Vincent E Hagens; Hans A Bosker; J Herre Kingma; Otto Kamp; Tsjerk Kingma; Salah A Said; Julius I Darmanata; Alphons J M Timmermans; Jan G P Tijssen; Harry J G M Crijns Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yoko Miyasaka; Marion E Barnes; Bernard J Gersh; Stephen S Cha; Kent R Bailey; Walter P Abhayaratna; James B Seward; Teresa S M Tsang Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Luca Testa; Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Antonio Dello Russo; Fulvio Bellocci; Felicita Andreotti; Filippo Crea Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2005-05-04 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21