This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dorian, P. Articles by Korley, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dorian, P. Articles by Korley, V. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Burden of Atrial Fibrillation: Should We Abandon Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy?

Department of Medicine and Division of Cardiology, St. Michael’s Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Iqwal Mangat, MD

Department of Medicine and Division of Cardiology, St. Michael’s Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Arnold Pinter, MD

Department of Medicine and Division of Cardiology, St. Michael’s Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Victoria Korley, MD

Department of Medicine and Division of Cardiology, St. Michael’s Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia, exacting a substantial toll in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Until recently, the prevailing philosophy has been that restoration and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm, as opposed to control of ventricular response rate, was the optimal approach to treatment of AF. A series of landmark trials (AFFIRM, RACE, STAF, and PIAF) have called this strategy into question, suggesting outcomes are equivalent with both approaches. These data do not mean that rhythm control is not beneficial, but highlight the limitations of current therapies to achieve and maintain sinus rhythm. Limitations of the rhythm-control strategy may be related to our difficulty in accurately documenting symptomatic benefit from this approach, the lack of efficacy and excessive adverse-effect burden associated with currently available antiarrhythmic agents, and selection biases in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials of rhythm control versus rate control, making the trials incompletely representative of the population eligible for therapy. New pharmacologic agents under development feature increased atrial selectivity or multi-channel-blocking properties (or both). As a result, these compounds may be more effective in prolonging atrial refractoriness and may also have reduced proarrhythmic potential. It is premature to abandon the concept of rhythm control in AF until we have trials designed to include younger and highly symptomatic patients, more sensitive tools to measure symptomatic improvement, and safer, more effective antiarrhythmic agents.

Key Words: atrial fibrillation • rhythm control • rate control • antiarrhythmic agents

Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 9, No. 4, 257-262 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/107424840400900405


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. N. Singh {beta}-Adrenergic Blockers as Antiarrhythmic and Antifibrillatory Compounds: An Overview Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, October 1, 2005; 10(4_suppl): S3 - S14. [Abstract] [PDF]