Moreover all the anti-arrhythmic agents that are used in treatment of AF were potentially pro-arrhythmic especially in patients with coronary artery disease and structurally abnormal heart .
Although atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen during daily cardiovascular physician practice , its management remained a challenge for cardiology physician as there was no single anti-arrhythmic agents proved to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and kept its effectiveness in maintaining sinus rhythm over long term .
Some of these drugs also have serious non cardiac side effects that limit its long term use in the management of atrial fibrillation .
Several new and investigational anti-arrhythmic agents are emerging but data supporting their effectiveness and safety are still limited .
A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation.
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 r and omly assigned 522 patients who had persistent atrial fibrillation after a previous electrical cardioversion to receive treatment aim ed 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
Moreover all the anti-arrhythmic agents that are used in treatment of AF were potentially pro-arrhythmic especially in patients with coronary artery disease and structurally abnormal heart .
Although atrial fibrillation ( AF ) is the most common sustained arrhythmia seen during daily cardiovascular physician practice , its management remained a challenge for cardiology physician as there was no single anti-arrhythmic agents proved to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and kept its effectiveness in maintaining sinus rhythm over long term .
Some of these drugs also have serious non cardiac side effects that limit its long term use in the management of atrial fibrillation .
Several new and investigational anti-arrhythmic agents are emerging but data supporting their effectiveness and safety are still limited .