These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Atrial fibrillation: rate control often better than rhythm control.
    Journal: Prescrire Int; 2004 Apr; 13(70):64-9. PubMed ID: 15148984.
    Abstract:
    (1) The treatment aims in atrial fibrillation are to reduce patients' symptoms and to prevent both embolism and deterioration of any underlying heart disease. Therapy consists of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs, treatment of any underlying heart disease, and heart rate control. (2) Digoxin, betablockers, diltiazem and verapamil slow the heart rate but rarely restore sinus rhythm. Amiodarone, disopyramide, flecainide, quinidine and sotalol can be used to prevent relapse of atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion, but they all have potentially serious adverse effects. New trials of antiarrhythmic treatments have been published since our last review of this subject. (3) In one trial in 403 patients, amiodarone was more effective than sotalol and propafenone in restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm. After 15 months of follow-up, there were fewer strokes among patients treated with amiodarone, but there was no difference between the three drugs in the overall incidence of cardiovascular events. (4) A clinical trial with 4060 patients compared rhythm control (mainly with amiodarone, sotalol or propafenone; sometimes combined with electrical cardioversion) and rate control (with digoxin, betablocker, diltiazem or verapamil; systematically combined with anticoagulant therapy). The antiarrhythmic treatment restored sinus rhythm in more than half the patients in the long term. But rhythm control did not reduce the risk of death or serious cardiovascular events during a mean follow-up period of 3.5 years. Rhythm control caused more adverse events than rate control; subgroup analyses (weak evidence) suggest that rhythm control may also have caused more deaths among patients over 65 and among patients with coronary heart disease. (5) In another trial, electrical cardioversion followed by antiarrhythmic therapy (mainly sotalol) sustainably restored sinus rhythm in more than one-third of 522 patients. But, compared with rate control treatment plus anticoagulant therapy, rhythm control did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, and was associated with a larger number of serious adverse cardiac effects. (6) Other recent trials confirm the risk of serious adverse effects, including severe arrhythmia with sotalol (especially at the start of treatment), and adverse thyroid and pulmonary effects with amiodarone. (7) Combined radiofrequency ablation and cardiac stimulation improved symptoms in some patients with incapacitating atrial fibrillation who had not responded to other treatments. However, this approach carries a risk of serious adverse effects, and its impact on the risk of cardiovascular events and death is not known. (8) In practice, an attempt should be made to restore sinus rhythm with amiodarone and/or electrical cardioversion, in symptomatic, recent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients under 65 who have no signs or symptoms of coronary heart disease. In other situations, rate control is the first-line option, using digoxin, betablockers (other than sotalol) or calcium channel blockers (diltiazem or verapamil). Whatever the option, treatment must be combined with anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy, and with treatment of any underlying heart disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]