|
|
|
||||||||||
PharmD Student, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH
Associate Professor of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Toledo; Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo
Reprints: Korin K Anthony BSPharm Sci, University of Toledo, 16751 US 127, Ohio City, OH 45874-9227, korinrph{at}hotmail.com
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rate control is a viable initial treatment approach in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) through the evaluation of recently completed trials comparing rate and rhythm control.
DATA SOURCES: Biomedical literature was obtained through MEDLINE (1966December 2003) and the Iowa database.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles identified from the biomedical literature search were reviewed and included if deemed relevant.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Currently available data suggest that rate control is not inferior to rhythm control in patients with persistent AF with respect to mortality. Rate control also reduces hospitalizations and the occurrence of proarrhythmias. No significant difference was observed between treatments with respect to thromboembolism and strokes.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the increased incidence of hospitalizations and antiarrhythmic adverse effects associated with rhythm control, rate control is a reasonable first-line strategy in the treatment of recurrent AF, especially in elderly patients who are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. Further studies are needed to clearly define the role of rate control in younger patients.
Key Words: atrial fibrillation, rate, rhythm
Published Online, March 23, 2004. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1D396
THIS ARTICLE IS APPROVED FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT
ACPE UNIVERSAL PROGRAM NUMBER: 407-000-04-017-H01