The New England Journal of Medicine
HOME   |   SEARCH   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   HELP
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 347:1825-1833 December 5, 2002 Number 23
NextNext

A Comparison of Rate Control and Rhythm Control in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Investigators

 
Article
- Table of Contents
- Full Text of this article
- PDF of this article
- PDA version of this article
- Perspective
- Editor's Summary
- CME Exam
- Related Letters to the Editor
Related editorials in the Journal:
-Falk, R. H.
- Find Similar Articles in the Journal
- Notify a friend about this article
- Journal Watch Cardiology Summary
- Journal Watch (General) Summary
Services
- Add to Personal Archive
- Download to Citation Manager
- Alert me when this article is cited
Medline
- Related Articles in Medline
- Medline Citation
Collections
-Arrhythmias
-Related Chapters at Harrison's Online
ABSTRACT

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 randomized, 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.


Source Information



The AFFIRM writing group (D.G. Wyse, A.L. Waldo, J.P. DiMarco, M.J. Domanski, Y. Rosenberg, E.B. Schron, J.C. Kellen, H.L. Greene, M.C. Mickel, J.E. Dalquist, and S.D. Corley) assumes overall responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

Address reprint requests to the AFFIRM Clinical Trial Center, Axio Research, 2601 4th Ave., Ste. 200, Seattle, WA 98121, or to leong@axioresearch.com.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Atrial Fibrillation — Rate versus Rhythm Control
Kühlkamp V., Seipel L., Healy E. C., Bhaskarabhatla K., Manning W. J., Wyse D. G., Van Gelder I. C., Crijns H. J.G.M.
Full Text  
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1284-1286, Mar 27, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME   |   SEARCH   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   HELP

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.