Rate Versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation: From Affirm to EAST-AFNET 4 – a Paradigm Shift

Abstract

The clinical choice between rate or rhythm control therapies has been debated over the years. In 2002, the AFFIRM trial demonstrated that the rhythm-control strategy had no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy. Eighteen years later, EAST-AFNET 4 showed that the rhythm-control approach is better than rate control in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). During the time between AFFIRM and EAST-AFNET 4, rhythm control understanding, specifically ablation, improved, while rate-control strategies remained the same possibly leading to the change in results seen in EAST-AFNET 4. This review seeks to evaluate the rate- and rhythm-control strategies, focusing on the important clinical trials in the past two decades. These trials have shown great advancement in AF management; however, the search for the best approach to controlling AF and minimizing the burden of symptoms is still a work in progress and needs further research.

Keywords:

• ablation
• antiarrhythmic drugs
• atrial fibrillation
• hospitalization
• mortality
• rate control
• rhythm control

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.