Data for rate versus rhythm control strategy on stroke and mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weng CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6143751 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Data for rate versus rhythm control strategy on stroke and mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Weng Chi-Jen CJ Li Cheng-Hung CH Liao Ying-Chieh YC Lin Che-Chen CC Lin Jiunn-Cherng JC Chang Shih-Lin SL Lo Chu-Pin CP Huang Kuo-Ching KC Huang Jin-Long JL Lin Ching-Heng CH Hsieh Yu-Cheng YC Wu Tsu-Juey TJ
Data in brief 20180906
The data relates to the cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, "Rhythm Control Better Prevents Stroke and Mortality than Rate Control Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation - A Nationwide Cohort Study" (Weng et al., in press). The AF patients might receive either rate or rhythm control strategy according to the medication used. The baseline medication in rate and rhythm control groups was included in this dataset. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with increased rates of death, complications, and hospitalizations. In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation who are in stable condition, the best initial treatment strategy--heart-rate control or rhythm control--remains controversial.MethodsPatients with new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to undergo either rate control or rhythm control. The primary end point was the total number of days of hospitalization within 60 days after randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.ResultsPostoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 695 of the 2109 patients (33.0%) who were enrolled preoperatively; of these patients, 523 underwent randomization. The total numbers of hospital days in the rate-control group and the rhythm-control group were similar (median, 5.1 days and 5.0 days, respectively; P=0.76). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death (P=0.64) or overall serious adverse events (24.8 per 100 patient-months in the rate-control group and 26.4 per 100 patient-months in the rhythm-control group, P=0.61), including thromboembolic and bleeding events. About 25% of the patients in each group deviated from the assigned therapy, mainly because of drug ineffectiveness (in the rate-control group) or amiodarone side effects or adverse drug reactions (in the rhythm-control group). At 60 days, 93.8% of the patients in the rate-control group and 97.9% of those in the rhythm-control group had had a stable heart rhythm without atrial fibrillation for the previous 30 days (P=0.02), and 84.2% and 86.9%, respectively, had been free from atrial fibrillation from discharge to 60 days (P=0.41).ConclusionsStrategies for rate control and rhythm control to treat postoperative atrial fibrillation were associated with equal numbers of days of hospitalization, similar complication rates, and similarly low rates of persistent atrial fibrillation 60 days after onset. Neither treatment strategy showed a net clinical advantage over the other. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02132767.).
| S-EPMC4908812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsComparative occurrence of ischemic stroke for rhythm versus rate control strategy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is still inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the rhythm control strategy is associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke compared to the rate control strategy in NVAF patients.MethodsThe CODE-AF registry prospectively enrolled 6,280 consecutive patients who were treated for NVAF at 10 tertiary referral centers in South Korea. Of these, 2,513 NVAF patients (age, 67 ± 10 years; male, 61.8%) were clinically followed up for over 1-year and divided into rate and rhythm control groups.ResultsThose treated with the rhythm control strategy were younger and had less proportions of underlying disease compared to those treated with the rate control strategy. After the propensity matching analysis, those treated with the rhythm control strategy had similar baseline characteristics including the CHA2DS2-VASC score compared to those treated with the rate control strategy. The rate of oral anticoagulation, all bleeding, and hospitalization were also similarly between the two groups. The incidence rate of ischemic stroke in the rhythm control group was significantly lower than in the rate control group (0.7 vs. 6.9 per 1,000 person-years, p = 0.011).ConclusionThe rhythm control strategy demonstrated a beneficial effect to lower the risk of ischemic stroke during a 1-year follow-up compared to the rate control strategy.
| S-EPMC7820664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Rhythm control is associated with better cardiovascular outcomes than usual care among patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). This study investigated the effects of rhythm control compared with rate control on the incidence of stroke, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death stratified by timing of treatment initiation. Methods and Results We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study including 22 635 patients with AF newly treated with rhythm control (antiarrhythmic drugs or ablation) or rate control in 2011 to 2015 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Propensity overlap weighting was used. Compared with rate control, rhythm control initiated within 1 year of AF diagnosis decreased the risk of stroke. The point estimates for rhythm control initiated at selected time points after AF diagnosis are as follows: 6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87), 1 year (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93), and 5 years (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.45-2.24). The initiation of rhythm control within 6 months of AF diagnosis reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure: 6 months (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95), 1 year (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.13), and 5 years (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.34-6.17). The risks of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death did not differ between rhythm and rate control regardless of treatment timing. Conclusions Early initiation of rhythm control was associated with a lower risk of stroke and heart failure-related admission than rate control in patients with recently diagnosed AF. The effects were attenuated as initiating the rhythm control treatment later.
| S-EPMC9075243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OPINION STATEMENT:Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a major risk factor for stroke. Unfortunately, clinical trials have failed to demonstrate that a strategy of rhythm control--therapy to maintain normal sinus rhythm (NSR)--reduces stroke risk. The apparent lack of benefit of rhythm control likely reflects the difficulty in maintaining NSR using currently available therapies. However, there are signals from several trials that the presence of NSR is indeed beneficial and associated with better outcomes related to stroke and mortality. Most electrophysiologists feel that as rhythm control strategies continue to improve, the crucial link between rhythm control and stroke reduction will finally be demonstrated. Therefore, AF specialists tend to be aggressive in their attempts to maintain NSR, especially in patients who have symptomatic AF. A step-wise approach from antiarrhythmic drugs to catheter ablation to cardiac surgery is generally used. In select patients, catheter ablation or cardiac surgery may supersede antiarrhythmic drugs. The choice depends on the type of AF, concurrent heart disease, drug toxicity profiles, procedural risks, and patient preferences. Regardless of strategy, given the limited effectiveness of currently available rhythm control therapies, oral anticoagulation is still recommended for stroke prophylaxis in AF patients with other stroke risk factors. Major challenges in atrial fibrillation management include selecting patients most likely to benefit from rhythm control, choosing specific antiarrhythmic drugs or procedures to achieve rhythm control, long-term monitoring to gauge the efficacy of rhythm control, and determining which (if any) patients may safely discontinue anticoagulation if long-term NSR is achieved.
| S-EPMC3651784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is ongoing debate around rate versus rhythm control strategies for managing atrial fibrillation (AF), however, much of the data comes from Western cohorts. Kerala-AF represents the largest prospective AF cohort study from the Indian subcontinent.ObjectivesTo compare 12-month outcomes between rate and rhythm control strategies.MethodsPatients aged ≥18 years with non-transient AF were recruited from 53 hospitals across Kerala. Patients were stratified by rate or rhythm control. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, arterial thromboembolism, acute coronary syndrome or hospitalization due to heart failure or arrhythmia at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included bleeding events and individual components of the primary. Predictors of the composite outcome were analysed by logistic regression.ResultsA total of 2901 patients (mean age 64.6 years, 51% female) were included (2464 rate control, 437 rhythm control). Rates of the primary composite outcome did not differ between groups (29.7% vs 30.0%; p = .955), nor did any component of the primary. Bleeding outcomes were also similar (1.6% vs 1.9%; p = .848). Independent predictors of the primary composite outcome were older age (aOR 1.01; p = .013), BMI <18 (aOR 1.51; p = .025), permanent AF (aOR 0.78; p = .010), HFpEF (aOR 1.40; p = .023), HFrEF (aOR 1.39; p = .004), chronic kidney disease (aOR 1.36; p < .001), and prior thromboembolism (aOR 1.31; p = .014).ConclusionIn the Kerala-AF registry, 12-month outcomes did not differ between rate and rhythm control cohorts.
| S-EPMC11317704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeComparisons of rhythm and rate control strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are still inconclusive. We compared differences in clinical outcomes between the rhythm and rate control strategies.Materials and methodsThe COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation (CODE-AF) registry prospectively enrolled 6000 patients who were treated for AF using real-world guideline adherence at multiple referral centers. In total, 2508 (41.8%) patients were clinically followed up for over six months. Of these, 1134 (45.2 %) patients treated by rhythm control and 1374 (54.8 %) patients treated by rate control were analyzed for clinical outcomes, including stroke and cardiovascular outcomes.ResultsAmong all patients (age, 68±10 years; male, 62.4%), those treated with the rhythm control strategy were significantly younger, had more symptomatic paroxysmal AF, and a shorter AF duration, and were less likely to have diabetes, renal dysfunction, and heart failure, compared to those treated with the rate control strategy (CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 2.4±1.5 vs. 3.1±1.7, p<0.001). Even though oral anticoagulation was similarly prescribed in both groups, occurrence of stroke was less likely to occur in the rhythm control strategy group (0.0% vs. 0.7%, p=0.015). Multivariate Cox hazard regression showed that only age, especially more than 75 years old, were significantly correlated with the occurrence of stroke, regardless of the strategy used for treatment.ConclusionIn this prospective AF cohort, compared with the rate control strategy, the rhythm control strategy was associated with fewer cardiovascular events and strokes in a short-term period.
| S-EPMC5823828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAtrial fibrillation is the most common heart arrhythmia with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of death and morbidity. In many patients, a rate control strategy is recommended. The optimal heart rate target is disputed despite the results of the the RAte Control Efficacy in permanent atrial fibrillation: a comparison between lenient vs strict rate control II (RACE II) trial.Our primary objective will be to investigate the effect of lenient rate control strategy (<110 beats per minute (bpm) at rest) compared with strict rate control strategy (<80 bpm at rest) on quality of life in patients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation.Methods and analysisWe plan a two-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. 350 outpatients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation will be recruited from four hospitals, across three regions in Denmark. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to a lenient medical rate control strategy (<110 bpm at rest) or a strict medical rate control strategy (<80 bpm at rest). The recruitment phase is planned to be 2 years with 3 years of follow-up. Recruitment is expected to start in January 2021. The primary outcome will be quality of life using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire (physical component score). Secondary outcomes will be days alive outside hospital, symptom control using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life, quality of life using the SF-36 questionnaire (mental component score) and serious adverse events. The primary assessment time point for all outcomes will be 1 year after randomisation.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained through the ethics committee in Region Zealand. The design and findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals as well as be made available on ClinicalTrials.gov.Trial registration numberNCT04542785.
| S-EPMC8016086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective It has long been debated whether rhythm control vs. rate control strategies have differing effects on mortality and morbidity for atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, several randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational trials described that an early rhythm management method was linked to a lower likelihood of negative clinical outcomes in individuals with AF. We wanted to see if an early rhythm management method may help patients with AF. Methods We performed a systematic search to retrieve studies assessing the outcomes of early rhythm control vs. rate control in AF by using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase published between 01/01/2000 and 15/04/2022. Results Finally, two RCTs, one retrospective analysis of RCTs, and four observational studies were identified. Compared with rate control, early rhythm control has been linked to lower all-cause mortality. [risk ratio (RR), 0.76; 95% CI 0.69–0.83; P < 0.00001; I2 = 77%]. The early rhythm control group was also associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.68; 95% CI 0.63–0.74; P < 0.00001; I2 = 33), stroke (RR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.67–0.87; P < 0.001; I2 = 64), and heart failure hospitalization (RR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.59–0.93; P = 0.0009; I2 = 93%). We found no significant difference in nights spent in hospital per year, acute coronary syndrome, major bleeding, and cardiac arrest/ventricular arrhythmia between the groups. Conclusion In this meta-analysis, early rhythm therapy was linked to a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization compared with the rate control group. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022333592.
| S-EPMC9939510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter may be managed by either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy but the evidence on the clinical effects of these two intervention strategies is unclear. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. METHODS:We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, TRIP, EU-CTR, Chi-CTR, and ICTRP for eligible trials comparing any rhythm control strategy with any rate control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter published before November 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were stroke and ejection fraction. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analysis and chose the most conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and by calculating inconsistency (I2) for traditional meta-analyses and diversity (D2) for TSA. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the reasons for substantial statistical heterogeneity. We assessed the risk of publication bias in meta-analyses consisting of 10 trials or more with tests for funnel plot asymmetry. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS:25 randomized clinical trials (n = 9354 participants) were included, all of which were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies significantly increased the risk of a serious adverse event (risk ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I2 = 12% (95% CI 0.00 to 0.32); 21 trials), but TSA did not confirm this result (TSA-adjusted CI 0.99 to 1.22). The increased risk of a serious adverse event did not seem to be caused by any single component of the composite outcome. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies were associated with better SF-36 physical component score (mean difference (MD), 6.93 points; 95% CI, 2.25 to 11.61; P = 0.004; I2 = 95% (95% CI 0.94 to 0.96); 8 trials) and ejection fraction (MD, 4.20%; 95% CI, 0.54 to 7.87; P = 0.02; I2 = 79% (95% CI 0.69 to 0.85); 7 trials), but TSA did not confirm these results. Both meta-analysis and TSA showed no significant differences on all-cause mortality, SF-36 mental component score, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS:Rhythm control strategies compared with rate control strategies seem to significantly increase the risk of a serious adverse event in patients with atrial fibrillation. Based on current evidence, it seems that most patients with atrial fibrillation should be treated with a rate control strategy unless there are specific reasons (e.g., patients with unbearable symptoms due to atrial fibrillation or patients who are hemodynamically unstable due to atrial fibrillation) justifying a rhythm control strategy. More randomized trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016051433.
| S-EPMC5658096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS:In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION:Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.
| S-EPMC6881713 | biostudies-literature