Atrial fibrillation: antiarrhythmic therapy versus rate control with antithrombotic therapy

Atrial fibrillation is a major health problem in the United States, but the best strategies for treating it have not been rigorously determined in clinical studies. Specifically, there is a paucity of data comparing the approach of maintaining sinus rhythm using prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy with the approach of controlling the ventricular response to atrial fibrillation while reducing embolic events with concomitant antithrombotic therapy. Until ongoing randomized trials are completed, which patients benefit most from a specific approach cannot be determined with certainty. In general, the most reasonable strategies include (1) the restoration of sinus rhythm (without prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy) after the patient's first episode of atrial fibrillation; and (2) the maintenance of sinus rhythm (including the use of prophylactic antiarrhythmic therapy) in patients who remain symptomatic despite adequate rate control, and who are not at high risk for proarrhythmia and/or are unlikely to maintain sinus rhythm. The risks and benefits need to be carefully weighed in patients with truly asymptomatic atrial fibrillation. Many patients may require multiple attempts to maintain sinus rhythm. Current investigative treatment modalities (e.g., ablation techniques, atrial implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, new antiarrhythmic agents) are likely to alter the current approaches to atrial fibrillation.