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 .
A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation : one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm , and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs , allowing atrial fibrillation to persist . In both approaches , the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended . METHODS We conducted a r and omized , multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death . The primary end point was overall mortality . RESULTS A total of 4060 patients ( mean [ + /-SD ] age , 69.7+/-9.0 years ) were enrolled in the study ; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension , and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease . Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms , the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent . There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy ( mortality at five years , 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent , respectively ; hazard ratio , 1.15 [ 95 percent confidence interval , 0.99 to 1.34 ] ; P=0.08 ) . More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized , and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well . In both groups , the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic . CONCLUSIONS Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy , and there are potential advantages , such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects , with the rate-control strategy . Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients
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 .