Perspectives and controversies in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia in humans. The 3 basic tenets of therapy are (1) restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm; (2) ventricular rate control; and (3) prevention of thromboembolism. Maintenance of sinus rhythm appears preferable to rate control alone in patients with significant symptoms caused by AF. Complete suppression of AF with drug therapy for >6 months is unusual, but it is not the sole criterion of success. As with other chronic cardiac disorders such as angina and heart failure, a marked reduction in frequency and duration of episodes of AF will likely translate into an excellent clinical outcome. The major risk of antiarrhythmic drug therapy is ventricular proarrhythmia, which is seen most frequently in patients with substantial left ventricular dysfunction. Torsade de pointes is the most frequent proarrhythmia that occurs with antiarrhythmic agents that prolong ventricular repolarization and the QT interval. To minimize the risk of proarrhythmia, antiarrhythmic drugs are started in-hospital in patients with significant heart disease, and agents are selected based on certain patient characteristics. For example, the drugs initially selected for patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease are amiodarone and sotalol, respectively. Two approaches may be used to decrease the thromboembolic risk associated with cardioversion of AF to sinus rhythm. In the conventional method, warfarin is given (INR 2.0-3.0) for 3 weeks before and at least 4 weeks after cardioversion. An alternative approach employs transesophageal echocardiography to rule out left atrial thrombi before cardioversion. Both methods appear reasonable and safe, and I prefer the conventional and transesophageal echocardiography-guided approaches for outpatients and in-hospital patients, respectively.