Rate control versus rhythm control--decision making.
The present review examines the data and presents recommendations concerning the selection of rate-control or rhythm-control strategies, as opposed to the selection of specific therapies for rate control or rhythm control. There are several trials completed and others in progress that address issues surrounding the comparison of the two strategies, primarily using pharmacological therapies. The main results and some subanalyses of these trials are briefly reviewed. Gaps in the available data are identified. On the basis of the data, there is no clear advantage of one strategy over the other, although each seems to have potential advantages in different subsets of patients. Accordingly, the main recommendations are that either approach is acceptable, and that selection of a rhythm-management strategy should be individualized. This recommendation is based on a primarily pharmacological approach because that is currently the most common form of therapy used for rhythm management and because the evidence base is composed of comparisons of drug therapies. A number of clinical factors are identified to help individualize therapy and, included in these, is patient preference. It is also recommended that treating physicians be prepared to cross over from one strategy to another or change to nonpharmacological therapies when treatment goals are not achieved or adverse effects prevail.
Wyse
D G
DG
Department of Cardiac Science, Libin Cardiovasular Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. dgwyse@ucalgary.ca
Simpson
Christopher S
CS
D001281:Atrial Fibrillation / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D006339:Heart Rate; D006801:Humans; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic