scholarly journals Conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and rate control by digoxin in comparison to placebo

1997 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Jordaens ◽  
J. Trouerbach ◽  
P. Calle ◽  
R. Tavernier ◽  
E. Derycke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Rate Control

scholarly journals Recent advances in rhythm control for atrial fibrillation

F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Bond ◽  
Brian Olshansky ◽  
Paulus Kirchhof
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Pulmonary Vein ◽  
Pulmonary Vein Isolation ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Management Problem ◽  
Recent Trial ◽  
Control Therapy

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a difficult management problem. The restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm—rhythm control therapy—can markedly improve symptoms and haemodynamics for patients who have paroxysmal or persistent AF, but some patients fare well with rate control alone. Sinus rhythm can be achieved with anti-arrhythmic drugs or electrical cardioversion, but the maintenance of sinus rhythm without recurrence is more challenging. Catheter ablation of the AF triggers is more effective than anti-arrhythmic drugs at maintaining sinus rhythm. Whilst pulmonary vein isolation is an effective strategy, other ablation targets are being evaluated to improve sinus rhythm maintenance, especially in patients with chronic forms of AF. Previously extensive ablation strategies have been used for patients with persistent AF, but a recent trial has shown that pulmonary vein isolation without additional ablation lesions is associated with outcomes similar to those of more extensive ablation. This has led to an increase in catheter-based technology to achieve durable pulmonary vein isolation. Furthermore, a combination of anti-arrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation seems useful to improve the effectiveness of rhythm control therapy. Two large ongoing trials evaluate whether a modern rhythm control therapy can improve prognosis in patients with AF.

Do Restoring and Maintaining Sinus Rhythm Have a Beneficial Effect on Secondary Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation? A Pilot Study

Angiology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 916-920 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cenk Conkbayir ◽  
Zerrin Yigit ◽  
Refika Hural ◽  
Murat Ugurlucan ◽  
Didem Melis Oztas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Beneficial Effect ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Recurrent Stroke ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Echocardiographic Examination ◽  
Ischemic Attack

We aimed to determine whether attempts to restore and maintain sinus rhythm will reduce recurrent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients (n = 245) between March 1998 and May 2002 with AF who had an ischemic stroke including transient ischemic attack 1 to 12 months before transesophageal echocardiographic examination and had been followed for 3 years were retrospectively reviewed. Cardioversion was attempted in 130 patients; 117 (90%) patients were successfully cardioverted (rhythm control group). The 13 patients who could not be cardioverted and 115 patients who did not undergo cardioversion were assigned to the rate control group. Age, gender, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, mitral valve disease, and left atrial diameter were similar in both groups. The rhythm control group included 56 patients (48.7%) who were still in sinus rhythm after 3 years. During follow-up, there were 2 embolic events (3.4%) and 2 deaths (3.4%) in the rhythm control group, whereas 18 embolic events (14.6%) and 18 deaths (14.6%) occurred in the rate control group ( P = .049 and P = .049, respectively). Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm seems to have a beneficial effect on secondary prevention of stroke in patients with AF.

Rate versus rhythm control therapy for atrial fibrillation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert L. Waldo
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Control Strategy ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Rate Versus ◽  
Ventricular Response ◽  
Tachycardia Induced Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Stable Sinus Rhythm

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.

scholarly journals Timing of cardioversion in atrial fibrillation: the sooner the better?

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_L) ◽  
pp. L41-L43
Author(s):  
Piera Capranzano ◽  
Valeria Calvi
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Psychological Burden ◽  
Treatment Pathway ◽  
Recent Onset ◽  
Wait And See ◽  
Costs Of Treatment ◽  
Spontaneous Conversion

Abstract Management of recent-onset (<36 h) atrial fibrillation (AF) in the emergency room is highly variable, particularly concerning the type and timing of cardioversion, and the logistics of the treatment pathway. In clinical practice, it is fairly common for patients with recent-onset AF an attempt at re-establishing sinus rhythm, either with electric or pharmacologic cardioversion, as soon as feasible. Nonetheless, a ‘wait-and-see’ approach, and potentially delayed cardioversion, could represent a valid alternative to early cardioversion, considering that, often, in recent-onset AF, sinus rhythm is re-established spontaneously, thus repealing the need for active cardioversion, hence avoiding the possible risks of treatment. These concepts form the rationale for a recent multicentric randomized trial, Rate Control vs. Electrical Cardioversion Trial 7 – Acute Cardioversion vs. Wait and See (RACE 7 ACWAS), comparing the efficacy of delayed cardioversion, within 48 h from symptoms onset, in case of lack of spontaneous conversion, with early cardioversion in symptomatic patients with recent-onset AF. In patients presenting to the emergency department with recent-onset, symptomatic AF, a wait-and-see approach was non-inferior to early cardioversion in maintaining the sinus rhythm at 4 weeks. Nonetheless a system employing a delayed cardioversion strategy increases the costs of treatment, complicates the treatment pathway, and could represent a psychological burden for the patients. Accordingly, delayed cardioversion could not represent a practical choice for many hospitals with limited resources and without an adequate outpatient organization.

Rate versus rhythm control therapy for atrial fibrillation

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 2177-2180
Author(s):  
Albert L. Waldo
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Control Strategy ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Rate Versus ◽  
Ventricular Response ◽  
Tachycardia Induced Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Stable Sinus Rhythm

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 or less, and probably 90 bpm or less. The importance of achieving and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure remains to be clearly established.

scholarly journals Rate Control and Sinus Rhythm Maintenance in Atrial Fibrillation

1998 ◽  
Vol 158 (19) ◽  
pp. 2144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall S. Stafford ◽  
Deborah C. Robson ◽  
Bismruta Misra ◽  
Jeremy Ruskin ◽  
Daniel E. Singer
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Sinus Rhythm Maintenance

Treatment of Acute Atrial Fibrillation: Ventricular Rate Control and Restoration of Sinus Rhythm

2000 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-95
Author(s):  
Ht Fung ◽  
Cw Kam
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Output ◽  
General Population ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Electrical Cardioversion ◽  
Ventricular Rate ◽  
The Past ◽  
Definite Risk

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a familiar arrhythmia seen in the emergency department and the general population. In the past it was treated in the majority of cases by controlling the ventricular rate, whether the AF is acute or chronic. However, ventricular rate control alone does not address the underlying problem and the patients still remain in AF, cardiac output and symptoms have not been optimally corrected. There is definite risk of thromboembolism. Restoration of sinus rhythm is the only way of resuming the normal conduction physiology of the heart and correcting these problems This article provides a review of the two major principles of rhythm treatment of acute AF: rate control and restoration of sinus rhythm. Transthoracic electrical cardioversion is the mainstay of treatment in haemodynamically unstable AF, whereas in stable AF, there is a choice between rate control and restoration of sinus rhythm, or they can be carried out in conjunction with each other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document