What is the efficacy of a rate-control strategy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)?

Updated: Dec 18, 2018
  • Author: Salvador Cruz-Flores, MD, MPH, FAHA, FCCM, FAAN, FACP, FANA; Chief Editor: Helmi L Lutsep, MD  more...
  • Print


Two randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated that a strategy aimed at restoring (and maintaining) sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation neither improves the survival rate nor reduces the risk of stroke. In the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study, 4060 patients aged 65 years or older whose atrial fibrillation was likely to be recurrent and who were at risk for stroke were randomized to a strategy of rhythm control (cardioversion to sinus rhythm, plus one or more drugs to maintain sinus rhythm) versus a strategy of rate control (in which no attempt was made to restore or maintain normal sinus rhythm). [12]

An insignificant trend toward increased mortality was noted in the rate-control group, and, importantly, no evidence suggested that the rhythm-control strategy protected patients from stroke. The AFFIRM study (and similar findings from the smaller Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion [RACE] trial [13] ) has led to the development of consensus guidelines advocating a rate-control strategy for most atrial fibrillation patients. [14]

Did this answer your question?
Additional feedback? (Optional)
Thank you for your feedback!