Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Rate vs Rhythm Control in Atrial Fibrillation

Rate vs Rhythm Control in Atrial Fibrillation EDITORIAL Can Observational Data Trump Randomized Trial Results? EARLY 100 YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE A lation more prone to significant AF-dependent adverse Dutch merchant first astonished Dr events. In addition, the current study followed 26 130 pa- Karel Wenckebach with the ability to tients over a mean duration of 3.1 years (maximum, 9 terminate episodes of atrial fibrillation years), whereas the mean duration of follow-up was 3.5 N (AF) through self-medication with qui- years (maximum, 6 years) for AFFIRM and 2.3 years 1 2,3 nine. Following this initial account of chemical cardio- (maximum, 3 years ) for RACE. Although the differ- version, maintenance of sinus rhythm gradually emerged ence in mean follow-up among these studies is not im- as the preferred but unproven approach to the manage- pressive, the substantially larger size of the observa- ment of AF. In the past decade, several randomized trials tional cohort and longer maximum follow-up time meant examined the comparable efficacy of a rhythm vs rate con- that a considerable number of patients remained in the 2-4 trol strategy in varied patient populations. The Atrial study beyond 3 years. If several years of observation are Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Manage- necessary before http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Internal Medicine American Medical Association

Rate vs Rhythm Control in Atrial Fibrillation

JAMA Internal Medicine , Volume 172 (13) – Jul 9, 2012

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/rate-vs-rhythm-control-in-atrial-fibrillation-OEodVaHV8S
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2012 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6106
eISSN
2168-6114
DOI
10.1001/archinternmed.2012.2332
pmid
22665022
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

EDITORIAL Can Observational Data Trump Randomized Trial Results? EARLY 100 YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE A lation more prone to significant AF-dependent adverse Dutch merchant first astonished Dr events. In addition, the current study followed 26 130 pa- Karel Wenckebach with the ability to tients over a mean duration of 3.1 years (maximum, 9 terminate episodes of atrial fibrillation years), whereas the mean duration of follow-up was 3.5 N (AF) through self-medication with qui- years (maximum, 6 years) for AFFIRM and 2.3 years 1 2,3 nine. Following this initial account of chemical cardio- (maximum, 3 years ) for RACE. Although the differ- version, maintenance of sinus rhythm gradually emerged ence in mean follow-up among these studies is not im- as the preferred but unproven approach to the manage- pressive, the substantially larger size of the observa- ment of AF. In the past decade, several randomized trials tional cohort and longer maximum follow-up time meant examined the comparable efficacy of a rhythm vs rate con- that a considerable number of patients remained in the 2-4 trol strategy in varied patient populations. The Atrial study beyond 3 years. If several years of observation are Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Manage- necessary before

Journal

JAMA Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jul 9, 2012

References