| Popis: |
Background Large trials have demonstrated that rate control is an acceptable alternative for rhythm control. However, optimal heart rate during atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown. Aim of this analysis was to compare outcome between rate control ≥80 and Methods In the RAte Control versus Electrical cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation study, 522 patients were included, and 256 were randomized to rate control. This post hoc analysis included patients randomized to rate control. Patients were divided according to their mean resting heart rate during follow-up, Results During follow-up (2.3 ± 0.6 years), a significant difference between both groups in heart rate was observed (72 ± 5 vs 90 ± 8 beat/min; P P = ns). Independent predictors for the primary end point were coronary artery disease, digoxin use, and interrupted anticoagulation, not high heart rate. Quality of life was comparable in both groups during follow-up. Conclusions In patients treated with a rate control strategy, no differences were observed in terms of cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and quality of life between the observed differences in level of rate control throughout follow-up. |
Full Text from ScienceDirect