Abstract 9992: Rhythm Control Versus Rate Control and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF)

Abstract

Introduction: Randomized trials have not demonstrated significant differences in stroke, heart failure or mortality between rhythm and rate control strategies for management of atrial fibrillation (AF). The comparative outcomes in contemporary clinical practice are not well described. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in clinical practice with rhythm control versus rate control strategy. Methods: Patients managed with a rhythm control strategy targeting maintenance of sinus rhythm were retrospectively compared with a strategy of rate control alone in a AF registry across various US practice settings. Unadjusted and adjusted (inverse-propensity weighted) outcomes were estimated. Results: The overall study population (n=6988) had a median age of 74 (25th, 75th percentile 65, 81) years, 56% were males, 77% had first detected or paroxysmal AF and 89% had CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. In unadjusted analyses, rhythm control was associated with lower all-cause death, cardiovascular death, first stroke/non-central nervous system systemic embolization/transient ischemic attack, or first major bleeding event (all p<0.05); however, rhythm control was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.39, p=0.0003; Figure). Conclusion: Among patients with AF in clinical practice, rhythm control was not superior to rate control strategy for outcomes of stroke, heart failure, or mortality, but was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations.