Assessment of Rhythm and Rate Control in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

A recent series of randomized prospective clinical trials that compared rate control with rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) found no significant difference in primary outcome between the two strategies. However, these trials lacked clear criteria for defining “successful” rate or rhythm control. Various measures have been used to gauge the success of antiarrhythmic drug therapy, including time to first recurrence of AF, any AF recurrence, AF burden, and a reduction in symptoms. Determining the success of antiarrhythmic therapy can be relatively straightforward by using how patients feel during therapy as a key endpoint. Most patients are satisfied with a major reduction in symptomatic AF episodes and can live comfortably with occasional episodes of AF. For those who are bothered by even infrequent, brief AF episodes, a treatment regimen that eliminates nearly all AF recurrences is required, although often hard to achieve. Catheter ablation may be necessary to achieve a successful outcome in these patients. Suppression of AF in a patient at high risk of stroke does not, however, remove the need for concomitant warfarin therapy. The endpoints of ventricular rate control are not clear, and the recently published rhythm versus rate control trials lacked standard criteria for judging acceptable rate control. One relatively simple method is to try and achieve a 24‐hour heart rate that mimics expected normal sinus rhythm. It is important to achieve good rate control to minimize symptoms and the risk of tachycardia‐mediated cardiomyopathy.