Rhythm or rate control in atrial fibrillation--Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation (PIAF): a randomised trial. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly encountered sustained cardiac arrhythmia. Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm is believed by many physicians to be superior to rate control only. However, there are no prospective data that compare both therapeutic strategies.
                The Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation (PIAF) trial was a randomised trial in 252 patients with atrial fibrillation of between 7 days and 360 days duration, which compared rate (group A, 125 patients) with rhythm control (group B, 127 patients). In group A, diltiazem was used as first-line therapy and amiodarone was used in group B. The primary study endpoint was improvement in symptoms related to atrial fibrillation.
                Over the entire observation period of 1 year, a similar proportion of patients reported improvement in symptoms in both groups (76 responders at 12 months in group A vs 70 responders in group B, p=0.317). Amiodarone administration resulted in pharmacological restoration of sinus rhythm in 23% of patients. Walking distance in a 6 min walk test was better in group B compared with group A, but assessment of quality of life showed no differences between groups. The incidence of hospital admission was higher in group B (87 [69%] out of 127 vs 30 [24%] out of 125 in group A, p=0.001). Adverse drug effects more frequently led to a change in therapy in group B (31 [25%] patients compared with 17 [14%] in group A, p=0.036).
                With respect to symptomatic improvement in patients with atrial fibrillation, the therapeutic strategies of rate versus rhythm control yielded similar clinical results overall. However, exercise tolerance is better with rhythm control, although hospital admission is more frequent. These data may serve as a basis to select therapy in individual patients. There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended.
                We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality.
                A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic.
                Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients.
                Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society