Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 3, 2026

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Atrial fibrillation: pharmacological therapy
Insights
Atrial fibrillation (AF) management focuses on symptom relief and stroke prevention. Both rate control and rhythm control strategies are effective, with specific approaches favored based on patient factors and clinical trial evidence.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Medicine
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia.
- AF is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity.
- AF management aims to alleviate symptoms and prevent stroke.
Purpose of the Study:
- To discuss the relative merits of rate control versus rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation.
- To highlight clinical trial evidence supporting each treatment approach.
Main Methods:
- Review of clinical trial data on AF treatment strategies.
- Discussion of anticoagulation with warfarin.
- Evaluation of rate control using atrioventricular nodal blocking agents.
- Assessment of rhythm control using antiarrhythmic drugs.
Main Results:
- Warfarin anticoagulation is unequivocally proven for stroke prevention.
- Rate control is a practical and often optimal strategy.
- Rhythm control may be ideal for specific patient groups (young, symptomatic, new-onset AF).
Conclusions:
- Both rate and rhythm control strategies have demonstrated clinical benefits in managing atrial fibrillation.
- Treatment choice should be individualized based on patient characteristics and available evidence.
Abstract:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Although once considered a nuisance arrhythmia, recent clinical trial evidence suggests that the presence of AF is an important independent predictor of mortality and morbidity. The primary goals of AF treatment are relief of symptoms and prevention of stroke. The value of anticoagulation with warfarin has been proven unequivocally. Control of ventricular rate with atrioventricular nodal blocking agents-the so-called rate control strategy-is least cumbersome and sometimes the best approach. By contrast, efforts to restore and maintain sinus rhythm using antiarrhythmic drugs-the rhythm control approach-although tedious, may be ideal in patients who are young or highly symptomatic and in those with new-onset AF. The relative merits of both treatment strategies are discussed in this article, emphasizing the excellent clinical trial data that support each.
Related Concept Videos
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class III Agents as Potassium Channel Blockers
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class II Agents as β-Adrenergic Blockers
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class IV Agents as Calcium Channel Blockers
Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker, inhibits calcium movement across myocardial cell membranes and vascular smooth muscle. This results in the dilation of coronary and...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management

