Blackshear Joseph L, Safford Robert E
Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Florida, USA.
Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003 Dec;7(4):366-9. doi: 10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023140.38226.75.
The Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) and Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Study (RACE) Trials evaluated strategies of rate control or rhythm control in atrial fibrillation. AFFIRM enrolled patients with recent onset AF, and at entry over half of all patients were in sinus rhythm. At any point in the trial, the achieved difference in cardiac rhythm was likely only about 30%. In RACE all patients were entered in AF, and at the end of the study, sinus rhythm was present in 10% vs 39%. The strategy of rate control was non-inferior to the rhythm control strategy in both trials, and permits consideration of rate control as primary therapy. However, the actual differences in rhythm were relatively small, and do not allow the conclusion that maintenance of sinus rhythm is inferior to non-maintenance. Current guidelines recommend that patients with paroxysmal AF receive warfarin if they have risk factors for stroke. This is supported by data from AFFIRM. Most strokes in AFFIRM occurred either during subtherapeutic INR, or after cessation of warfarin. Since more patients in the rhythm control arm of AFFIRM discontinued warfarin, it is possible that asymptomatic recurrences of paroxysmal AF fostered clot development and embolization. We cannot answer from the data available whether or not it is safe to discontinue anticoagulation if all episodes of AF are suppressed. Among the reasons that AF is associated with increased mortality may be that it encourages development of congestive heart failure or progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Congestive heart failure occurrence was monitored in both trials, and occurred at a rate of 2-5% without significant differences between rate and rhythm arms. In patients with heart failure at entry, a mortality trend in AFFIRM favored the rhythm control arm. The issue of survivorship and rhythm control in AF in congestive heart failure is undergoing further testing.
心房颤动(AF)节律管理随访调查(AFFIRM)以及持续性心房颤动的心率控制与电复律研究(RACE)试验评估了心房颤动的心率控制或节律控制策略。AFFIRM纳入了近期发作房颤的患者,入组时超过半数患者处于窦性心律。在试验的任何时间点,实现的心律差异可能仅约为30%。在RACE中,所有患者均以房颤状态入组,研究结束时,窦性心律的患者比例为10%对39%。在两项试验中,心率控制策略均不劣于节律控制策略,因此可将心率控制视为主要治疗方法。然而,实际的心律差异相对较小,因此不能得出维持窦性心律劣于不维持窦性心律的结论。当前指南建议,阵发性房颤患者若有中风危险因素应接受华法林治疗。这得到了AFFIRM数据的支持。AFFIRM中的大多数中风发生在国际标准化比值(INR)治疗不足期间或华法林停药后。由于AFFIRM中节律控制组的更多患者停用了华法林,阵发性房颤的无症状复发可能促进了血栓形成和栓塞。根据现有数据,我们无法回答如果房颤所有发作均得到抑制,停用抗凝治疗是否安全。房颤与死亡率增加相关的原因之一可能是它会促使充血性心力衰竭或进行性左心室功能障碍的发展。两项试验均监测了充血性心力衰竭的发生情况,发生率为2%-5%,心率控制组和节律控制组之间无显著差异。对于入组时即患有心力衰竭的患者,AFFIRM中的死亡率趋势有利于节律控制组。充血性心力衰竭患者房颤的生存及节律控制问题正在接受进一步研究。