Hagens Vincent E, Ranchor Adelita V, Van Sonderen Eric, Bosker Hans A, Kamp Otto, Tijssen Jan G P, Kingma J Herre, Crijns Harry J G M, Van Gelder Isabelle C
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital, Groningen, Netherlands.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jan 21;43(2):241-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.08.037.
We studied the influence of rate control or rhythm control in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) on quality of life (QoL).
Atrial fibrillation may cause symptoms like fatigue and dyspnea. This can impair QoL. Treatment of AF with either rate or rhythm control may influence QoL.
Quality of life was assessed in patients included in the Rate Control Versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (RACE) study (rate vs. rhythm control in persistent AF). Rate control patients (n = 175) were given negative chronotropic drugs and oral anticoagulation. Rhythm control patients (n = 177) received serial electrocardioversion, antiarrhythmic drugs, and oral anticoagulation, as needed. Quality of life was studied using the Short Form (SF)-36 health survey questionnaire at baseline, one year, and the end of the study (after 2 to 3 years of follow-up). At baseline, QoL was compared with that of healthy control subjects. Patient characteristics related to QoL changes were determined.
Mean follow-up was 2.3 years. At baseline, QoL was lower in patients than in age-matched healthy controls. At study end, under rate control, three subscales of the SF-36 improved. Under rhythm control, no significant changes occurred compared with baseline. At study end, QoL was comparable between both groups. The presence of complaints of AF at baseline, a short duration of AF, and the presence of sinus rhythm (SR) at the end of follow-up, rather than the assigned strategy, were associated with QoL improvement.
Quality of life is impaired in patients with AF compared with healthy controls. Treatment strategy does not affect QoL. Patients with complaints related to AF, however, may benefit from rhythm control if SR can be maintained.
我们研究了持续性心房颤动(AF)患者采用心率控制或节律控制对生活质量(QoL)的影响。
心房颤动可能导致疲劳和呼吸困难等症状,这会损害生活质量。采用心率控制或节律控制治疗心房颤动可能会影响生活质量。
在持续性心房颤动心率控制与电复律研究(RACE研究,即持续性房颤的心率与节律控制研究)纳入的患者中评估生活质量。心率控制组患者(n = 175)给予负性变时药物和口服抗凝药。节律控制组患者(n = 177)根据需要接受系列电复律、抗心律失常药物和口服抗凝药。在基线、1年以及研究结束时(随访2至3年后),使用简短健康调查问卷(SF-36)研究生活质量。在基线时,将生活质量与健康对照者进行比较。确定与生活质量变化相关的患者特征。
平均随访2.3年。在基线时,患者的生活质量低于年龄匹配的健康对照者。在研究结束时,在心率控制下,SF-36的三个子量表有所改善。在节律控制下,与基线相比无显著变化。在研究结束时,两组之间的生活质量相当。基线时存在房颤相关主诉、房颤持续时间短以及随访结束时存在窦性心律(SR),而非所分配的治疗策略,与生活质量改善相关。
与健康对照者相比,房颤患者的生活质量受损。治疗策略不影响生活质量。然而,有房颤相关主诉的患者,如果能维持窦性心律,可能从节律控制中获益。