Rate versus rhythm control in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation

The management of patients with atrial fibrillation involves three main areas: anticoagulation, rate control and rhythm control. Importantly, these are not mutually exclusive of each other. Anticoagulation is necessary for patients who are at a high risk of stroke; for example, those who are older than 75 years, or those who have hypertension, severe left ventricular dysfunction, previous cerebrovascular events, or diabetes. It is now clear that patients who are at a high risk of stroke require long-term anticoagulation with warfarin regardless of whether a rate-control or rhythm-control strategy is chosen. One possible exception might be patients who are apparently cured with catheter ablation. Several published trials comparing rate-control and rhythm-control strategies for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation have shown no difference in mortality between these approaches. The patients enrolled in these studies were typically over 65 years of age. Data comparing rate and rhythm strategies in patients who are younger than 60 years of age are limited. For more elderly patients, it seems reasonable to consider rate control as a primary treatment option and to reserve rhythm control for those who do not respond to rate control. For younger patients, we prefer to start with a rhythm-control approach and to reserve rate-control approaches for patients in whom antiarrhythmic drugs, ablation, or both, do not ameliorate the symptoms.