Dataset Information

A review of rate control in atrial fibrillation, and the rationale and protocol for the RATE-AF trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and causes impaired quality of life, an increased risk of stroke and death as well as frequent hospital admissions. The majority of patients with AF require control of heart rate. In this article , we summarise the limited evidence from clinical trials that guides prescription, and present the rationale and protocol for a new randomised trial. As rate control has not yet been shown to reduce mortality, there is a clear need to compare the impact of therapy on quality of life, cardiac function and exercise capacity. Such a trial should concentrate on the long-term effects of treatment in the largest proportion of patients with AF, those with symptomatic permanent AF, with the aim of improving patient well-being. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION:The RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) trial will enrol 160 participants with a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end point design comparing initial rate control with digoxin or bisoprolol. This will be the first head-to-head randomised trial of digoxin and beta-blockers in AF. PARTICIPANTS:Recruited patients will be aged Ã¢Â‰Â¥60 years with permanent AF and symptoms of breathlessness (equivalent to New York Heart Association class II or above), with few exclusion criteria to maximise generalisability to routine clinical practice. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome is patient-reported quality of life, with secondary outcomes including echocardiographic ventricular function, exercise capacity and biomarkers of cellular and clinical response. Follow-up will occur at 6 and 12 months, with feasibility components to inform the design of a future trial powered to detect a difference in hospital admission. The RATE-AF trial will underpin an integrated approach to management including biomarkers, functions and symptoms that will guide future research into optimal, personalised rate control in patients with AF. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (16/EM/0178); peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02391337; ISRCTN: 95259705. Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Kotecha D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5588987 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of rate control in atrial fibrillation, and the rationale and protocol for the RATE-AF trial.

Kotecha Dipak D Calvert Melanie M Deeks Jonathan J JJ Griffith Michael M Kirchhof Paulus P Lip Gregory Yh GY Mehta Samir S Slinn Gemma G Stanbury Mary M Steeds Richard P RP Townend Jonathan N JN

BMJ open 20170720 7

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and causes impaired quality of life, an increased risk of stroke and death as well as frequent hospital admissions. The majority of patients with AF require control of heart rate. In this article , we summarise the limited evidence from clinical trials that guides prescription, and present the rationale and protocol for a new randomised trial. As rate control has not yet been shown to reduce mortality, there is a clear need to c ...[more]

PMID: 28729311

Similar Datasets

Project description:Few data on the thromboembolic (TE) risk of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) are available. This study aimed to assess the incidence of TE events in paroxysmal and persistent AF.We performed a subset post hoc analysis of 771 patients with paroxysmal and 463 with persistent AF enrolled in the multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled GISSI-AF trial - comparing the efficacy of valsartan versus placebo in preventing AF recurrences - where the choice of antithrombotic treatment was left to the judgment of the referring physician. TE and major outcome events were centrally validated. AF recurrences were detected by frequent clinic visits and a transtelephonic monitoring device with weekly and symptomatic transmissions.Eighty-five percent of patients had a history of hypertension, and the 7.7% had heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. The mean CHADS2 score was 1.41±0.84. TE and major bleeding events were observed at a low incidence among the overall population at 1-year follow-up (0.97% and 0.81%, respectively). The univariate and multivariable analyses revealed no statistically significant differences in the incidence of TE, major bleeding events or mortality in paroxysmal and persistent AF patients. TE events were more common among women than men (p=0.02). The follow-up examination showed under- or overtreatment with warfarin in many patients, according to guideline suggestions. Warfarin was more frequently prescribed to patients with persistent AF (p<0.0001) and patients with AF recurrences (p<0.0001). AF recurrences were noninvasively detected in 632 (51.2%) patients. In patients without AF recurrences, the TE event rate was 0.5% versus 1.74%, 1.28%, and 1.18% for those with only symptomatic, only asymptomatic or both symptomatic and asymptomatic AF recurrences, respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant, even after adjusting for warfarin treatment and the CHADS2 score (HR 2.93; CI 95%; 0.8-10.9; p=0.11).TE and major bleeding events showed a very low incidence in the GISSI-AF trial population, despite under- or overtreatment with warfarin in many patients. TE events had a similar rate in paroxysmal and persistent AF.NCT00376272.

Project description:ImportanceThere is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure.ObjectiveTo compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker).Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019.InterventionsDigoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting.ResultsAmong 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13.

Dataset Information

A review of rate control in atrial fibrillation, and the rationale and protocol for the RATE-AF trial.

Publications

A review of rate control in atrial fibrillation, and the rationale and protocol for the RATE-AF trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets