As such , evidence was insufficient to recommend rhythm or rate control as the first-line therapy for AF in older adults .
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is highly prevalent in older adults and has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality .
To reduce this AF-related morbidity in older adults , antiarrhythmic drugs ( AADs ) are regularly used for rhythm control , assuming that increasing time in sinus rhythm reduces AF-related morbidity .
However , whether AADs can improve clinical outcomes in older adults remains unclear because of the increased risk for adverse drug events compared with rate control .
The aim of this study was to determine the impact of rhythm control versus rate control on clinical outcomes in older adults with AF .
Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators.
BACKGROUND The restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is a desirable goal in patients with atrial fibrillation , because the prevention of recurrences can improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms . Uncontrolled studies have suggested that amiodarone in low doses may be more effective and safer than other agents in preventing recurrence , but this agent has not been tested in a large , r and omized trial . METHODS We undertook a prospect i ve , multicenter trial to test the hypothesis that low doses of amiodarone would be more efficacious in preventing recurrent atrial fibrillation than therapy with sotalol or propafenone . We r and omly assigned patients who had had at least one episode of atrial fibrillation within the previous six months to amiodarone or to sotalol or propafenone , given in an open-label fashion . The patients in the group assigned to sotalol or propafenone underwent a second r and omization to determine whether they would receive sotalol or propafenone first ; if the first drug was unsuccessful the second agent was prescribed . Loading doses of the drugs were administered and electrical cardioversion was performed ( if necessary ) within 21 days after r and omization for all patients in both groups . The follow-up period began 21 days after r and omization . The primary end point was the length of time to a first recurrence of atrial fibrillation . RESULTS Of the 403 patients in the study , 201 were assigned to  amiodarone  and 202 to either sotalol ( 101 patients ) or propafenone ( 101 patients ) . After a mean of 16 months of follow-up , 71 of the patients who were assigned to amiodarone ( 35 percent ) and 127 of those who were assigned to sotalol or propafenone ( 63 percent ) had a recurrence of atrial fibrillation ( P<0.001 ) . Adverse events requiring the discontinuation of drug therapy occurred in 18 percent of the patients receiving amiodarone , as compared with 11 percent of those treated with sotalol or propafenone ( P=0.06 ) . CONCLUSIONS Amiodarone is more effective than sotalol or propafenone for the prevention of recurrences of atrial fibrillation
As such , evidence was insufficient to recommend rhythm or rate control as the first-line therapy for AF in older adults .
Atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is highly prevalent in older adults and has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality .
To reduce this AF-related morbidity in older adults , antiarrhythmic drugs ( AADs ) are regularly used for rhythm control , assuming that increasing time in sinus rhythm reduces AF-related morbidity .
However , whether AADs can improve clinical outcomes in older adults remains unclear because of the increased risk for adverse drug events compared with rate control .
The aim of this study was to determine the impact of rhythm control versus rate control on clinical outcomes in older adults with AF .