Based on data from several clinical trials, either rate control or rhythm control is an acceptable primary therapeutic strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, since atrial fibrillation tends to recur no matter the therapy, rate control should almost always be a part of the treatment. If a rhythm control strategy is selected, it is important to recognize that recurrence of atrial fibrillation is common, but not clinical failure per se. Rather, the frequency and duration of episodes, as well as severity of symptoms during atrial fibrillation episodes should guide treatment decisions. Thus, occasional recurrence of atrial fibrillation despite therapy may well be clinically acceptable. However, for some patients, rhythm control may be the only strategy that is acceptable. In short, for most patients, either a rate or rhythm control strategy should be considered. However, for all patients, there are two main goals of therapy. One is to avoid stroke and/or systemic embolism, and the other is to avoid a tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Also, because of the frequency of atrial fibrillation recurrence despite the treatment strategy selected, patients with stroke risks should receive anticoagulation therapy despite seemingly having achieved stable sinus rhythm. For patients in whom a rate control strategy is selected, a lenient approach to the acceptable ventricular response rate is a resting heart rate of 110 bpm, and probably 90 bpm. The importance of achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure remains to be clearly established.
Influence of the maze procedure on the treatment of rheumatic atrial fibrillation - evaluation of rhythm control and clinical outcome in a comparative study
