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 .
Real-life observations of clinical outcomes with rhythm- and rate-control therapies for atrial fibrillation RECORDAF (Registry on Cardiac Rhythm Disorders Assessing the Control of Atrial Fibrillation).
OBJECTIVES RECORDAF is the first worldwide , prospect i ve , observational survey of management of atrial fibrillation ( AF ) in unselected , community-based patients . BACKGROUND Primary outcomes were therapeutic success and clinical outcomes associated with rhythm-control and rate-control strategies . METHODS Patients with recent-onset AF were included ( n = 5,604 ) . Treatment strategy ( rhythm control or rate control ) was noted at baseline . Follow-up was 12 months . Therapeutic success required that strategy was unchanged without clinical events . Further maintenance of sinus rhythm was required in the rhythm-control group , and heart rate ≤80 beats/min in the rate-control group . RESULTS Data from 5,171 patients were assessable . Therapeutic success was 54 % overall ( rhythm control 60 % vs. rate control 47 % ) , a result driven by control of AF : rhythm control , 81 % vs. rate control , 74 % . After adjustment for propensity score quintiles , the rhythm-control strategy was significantly related to superior therapeutic success ( odds ratio : 1.34 , 95 % confidence interval : 1.15 to 1.55 ; p = 0.0002 ) . Clinical events occurred in 18 % of patients . The arrhythmia management strategy was not predictive of clinical events . The type ( persistent ) , presence at baseline visit , and duration ( > 3 months ) of AF , together with age older than 75 years and the presence of heart failure , predicted progression to permanent AF . The choice of rhythm control reduced the likelihood of AF progression ( odds ratio : 0.20 , 95 % confidence interval : 0.17 to 0.25 ; p < 0.0001 ) . CONCLUSIONS Clinical outcomes in AF patients were driven mainly by hospitalizations for arrhythmia/proarrhythmia and other cardiovascular causes , but not by the choice of rate or rhythm strategy . Rhythm-control patients progressed less rapidly to permanent AF
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 .