[Atrial fibrillation: rhythm control versus rate control? (New evidences from clinical trials)].
One of the fundamental questions in the management of atrial fibrillation is whether cardioversion should be attempted. Studies have compared rate control with rhythm control strategies. Rhythm control has not been shown to be superior to rate control (with chronic anticoagulation) in reducing morbidity and mortality and may be inferior in some patient subgroups to rate control. Whether these results can be extrapolated to longer time periods than the trial duration (approximately 3.5 years) is not known. The purpose of this article is to discuss some important aspects of atrial fibrillation and to review recent developments in the management of this condition.
Auskalniene
Regina
R
Clinic of Cardiology, Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital, Lithuania.
Kavoliūniene
Ausra
A
Puodziukynas
Aras
A
D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000925:Anticoagulants / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001281:Atrial Fibrillation / Q000150:complications / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000401:mortality / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery / Q000628:therapy*; D017115:Catheter Ablation; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D004554:Electric Countershock; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006339:Heart Rate; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012307:Risk Factors; D013997:Time Factors
D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; D000925:Anticoagulants