The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 347:1834-1840 December 5, 2002 Number 23
NextNext

A Comparison of Rate Control and Rhythm Control in Patients with Recurrent Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Isabelle C. Van Gelder, M.D., Vincent E. Hagens, M.D., Hans A. Bosker, M.D., J. Herre Kingma, M.D., Otto Kamp, M.D., Tsjerk Kingma, M.Sc., Salah A. Said, M.D., Julius I. Darmanata, M.D., Alphons J.M. Timmermans, M.D., Jan G.P. Tijssen, Ph.D., Harry J.G.M. Crijns, M.D., for the Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Study Group

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-PowerPoint Slide Set

Commentary
-Perspective
 by Cain, M. E.
-Editorial
 by Falk, R. H.
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Maintenance of sinus rhythm is the main therapeutic goal in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, recurrences of atrial fibrillation and side effects of antiarrhythmic drugs offset the benefits of sinus rhythm. We hypothesized that ventricular rate control is not inferior to the maintenance of sinus rhythm for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

Methods We randomly assigned 522 patients who had persistent atrial fibrillation after a previous electrical cardioversion to receive treatment aimed at rate control or rhythm control. Patients in the rate-control group received oral anticoagulant drugs and rate-slowing medication. Patients in the rhythm-control group underwent serial cardioversions and received antiarrhythmic drugs and oral anticoagulant drugs. The end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, heart failure, thromboembolic complications, bleeding, implantation of a pacemaker, and severe adverse effects of drugs.

Results After a mean (±SD) of 2.3±0.6 years, 39 percent of the 266 patients in the rhythm-control group had sinus rhythm, as compared with 10 percent of the 256 patients in the rate-control group. The primary end point occurred in 44 patients (17.2 percent) in the rate-control group and in 60 (22.6 percent) in the rhythm-control group. The 90 percent (two-sided) upper boundary of the absolute difference in the primary end point was 0.4 percent (the prespecified criterion for noninferiority was 10 percent or less). The distribution of the various components of the primary end point was similar in the rate-control and rhythm-control groups.

Conclusions Rate control is not inferior to rhythm control for the prevention of death and morbidity from cardiovascular causes and may be appropriate therapy in patients with a recurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion.


Source Information

From the Department of Cardiology (I.C.V.G., V.E.H., H.J.G.M.C.) and the Trial Coordination Center (T.K.), University Hospital, Groningen; Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem (H.A.B.); St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein (J.H.K.); Free University Medical Center, Amsterdam (O.K.); Hospital Midden-Twente, Hengelo (S.A.S.); Twenteborg Hospital, Almelo (J.I.D.); Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede (A.J.M.T.); and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam (J.G.P.T.) — all in the Netherlands.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Van Gelder at the Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, University Hospital Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands, or at i.c.van.gelder{at}thorax.azg.nl.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Atrial Fibrillation — Rate versus Rhythm Control
Kühlkamp V., Seipel L., Healy E. C., Bhaskarabhatla K., Manning W. J., Wyse D. G., Van Gelder I. C., Crijns H. J.G.M.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1284-1286, Mar 27, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.