Rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that can promote or worsen heart failure (HF). Limited data exist to guide treatment for patients with AF with HF regarding rate versus rhythm control. Purpose To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in the determination of the efficacy of rhythm control as compared to rate control among patients with AF and HF. Methods Extensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Medline was done up to October 2020. Studies were limited to RCTs comparing rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with rate control. Outcome measures include all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Statistical analysis was done using Review manager V5.3. Results A total of 9800 patients were included in the pooled analysis of the comparison of rhythm control versus rate control strategy in patients with AF and HF. All pooled analyses were done using random effects model. The pooled risk ratio for all-cause mortality of rate control vs rhythm control did not achieve significance at 1.15, with 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45, and p=0.24. There was statistically significant heterogeneity across the two studies with I2 of 54% and p=0.02 (Figure 1A). The pooled risk ratio for cardiovascular mortality in rate control strategy vs rhythm control is 1.19, with 95% CI 0.94 to 1.50, and p=0.15 (Figure 1B). Eight trials with 9987 participants reported stroke. The pooled risk ratio of stroke in rate control vs rhythm control is 1.11, with 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46, and p=0.47 (Figure 1C). The 95% CI for the pooled risk ratio cross 1.00, indicating an equivocal result. Our results do not indicate statistical heterogeneity across the studies with I2 of 28% and p=0.27. Seven trials with 8311 participants reported bleeding. The pooled risk ratio of hospitalization for bleeding in rate control vs rhythm control is 1.18, with 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73, and p=0.39 (Figure 1D). Thus, we have insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether rate or rhythm control have significantly higher or lower risk for bleeding. Four trials with 8468 participants reported hospitalization rate. The pooled risk ratio of hospitalization in rate control compared to rhythm control is 0.96, with 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, and p=0.42 (Figure 1E). None of the studies individually showed statistically significant differences but AF–CHF showed benefit of rate control in the first year after enrolment (p=0.001) and a tendency favouring rate control (p=0.06) when the study was analysed in full length except for AF-CHF. Conclusion Among patients with AF and concomitant HF, there is no sufficient evidence between rate and rhythm control strategies in their effects to rates of mortality and major clinical outcomes; therefore, choosing an appropriate therapeutic strategy should consider individual variations such as patient preferences, comorbidities, and treatment cost. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Forest Plot A–CForest Plot D–E