Rate Control Strategy In Patients Research Articles

Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure

An increase in the prevalence of both atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure is occurring in part because of the demographic shift toward an aging population. These two clinical entities often coexist in the same patient, resulting in the worsening of symptoms and prognosis, rendering their management even more challenging. A large clinical trial is currently examining whether a rhythm-control strategy is superior to a rate-control strategy in patients with congestive heart failure. New nonpharmacologic therapies such as pulmonary vein isolation are undergoing clinical investigation and may also alter the management of these patients. At present, therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients with congestive heart failure should aim first at controlling heart rate to provide symptomatic relief; then sinus rhythm should be restored if symptoms persist or if congestive heart failure worsens. For a more definitive approach in managing these patients, the authors await further clinical trial data.

Rationale and design of a study assessing treatment strategies of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: The Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial

Background Nonrandomized studies suggest that atrial fibrillation is independently associated with increased mortality in patients with heart failure. Whether restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm will have a beneficial impact on cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure has never been tested in an adequately powered randomized trial. Objective The primary objective of the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial is to determine whether restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm significantly reduces cardiovascular mortality compared with a rate-control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHF. Methods AF-CHF is a prospective multicenter trial (109 centers in Canada, United States, South America, Europe, and Israel), that will randomize 1450 patients with CHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and atrial fibrillation to 1 of 2 treatment strategies: (1) rhythm control with the use of electrical cardioversion combined with antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or other class III agents), (2) rate control with the use of β-blockers, digoxin, or pacemaker and AV nodal ablation. Cardiovascular mortality is the primary end point and the intention-to-treat approach the primary method of analysis. We anticipate an 18.75% 2-year cardiovascular mortality in the rate control arm with a 25% mortality reduction in the rhythm control group. Results As of August 13, 2002, 334 patients have been enrolled from 68 participating centers. Enrollment is expected to be concluded in May 2003 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Conclusion The results of this trial should provide definitive information concerning 2 widely applicable treatment strategies of atrial fibrillation in a large cohort of patients with CHF. (Am Heart J 2002;144:597-607.)

Rationale and design of a study assessing treatment strategies of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: The Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial

Background Nonrandomized studies suggest that atrial fibrillation is independently associated with increased mortality in patients with heart failure. Whether restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm will have a beneficial impact on cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure has never been tested in an adequately powered randomized trial. Objective The primary objective of the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial is to determine whether restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm significantly reduces cardiovascular mortality compared with a rate-control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHF. Methods AF-CHF is a prospective multicenter trial (109 centers in Canada, United States, South America, Europe, and Israel), that will randomize 1450 patients with CHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and atrial fibrillation to 1 of 2 treatment strategies: (1) rhythm control with the use of electrical cardioversion combined with antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or other class III agents), (2) rate control with the use of β-blockers, digoxin, or pacemaker and AV nodal ablation. Cardiovascular mortality is the primary end point and the intention-to-treat approach the primary method of analysis. We anticipate an 18.75% 2-year cardiovascular mortality in the rate control arm with a 25% mortality reduction in the rhythm control group. Results As of August 13, 2002, 334 patients have been enrolled from 68 participating centers. Enrollment is expected to be concluded in May 2003 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Conclusion The results of this trial should provide definitive information concerning 2 widely applicable treatment strategies of atrial fibrillation in a large cohort of patients with CHF. (Am Heart J 2002;144:597-607.)