title: Rate or rhythm control in persistent atrial fibrillation?
abstract: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained tachyarrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, with the majority of patients aged > 65 years. With an increasingly ageing population, the burden of AF in society continues to rise. One of the principal controversies in AF management is whether to control the ventricular rate and accept the underlying rhythm, or to attempt to achieve sinus rhythm. Until recently there were no clinical trial data directly comparing a rate versus rhythm strategy, and most physicians have opted for rhythm control, based on its theoretical benefits. We present an up-to-date evidence-based overview of the relative merits of rate versus rhythm control in AF, including data from five recent randomized trials. We draw conclusions from these studies and present evidence-based guidance on when to adopt which approach in routine clinical practice.
authors: Department of Cardiology, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK. christopherboos@hotmail.com
authors: C J
authors: CJ
authors: Boos
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Carlsson
authors: R S
authors: RS
authors: More
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000925:Anticoagulants / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001281:Atrial Fibrillation / Q000628:therapy*; D002316:Cardiotonic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000379:methods; D002908:Chronic Disease; D003657:Decision Making; D004554:Electric Countershock / Q000379:methods; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D010865:Pilot Projects; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D000925:Anticoagulants; D002316:Cardiotonic Agents