Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Cardiology, CHA Bundang Medical Centre, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
BMJ. 2021 May 11;373:n991. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n991.
To investigate whether the results of a rhythm control strategy differ according to the duration between diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and treatment initiation.
Longitudinal observational cohort study.
Population based cohort from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database.
22 635 adults with atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular conditions, newly treated with rhythm control (antiarrhythmic drugs or ablation) or rate control strategies between 28 July 2011 and 31 December 2015.
A composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, ischaemic stroke, admission to hospital for heart failure, or acute myocardial infarction.
Of the study population, 12 200 (53.9%) were male, the median age was 70, and the median follow-up duration was 2.1 years. Among patients with early treatment for atrial fibrillation (initiated within one year since diagnosis), compared with rate control, rhythm control was associated with a lower risk of the primary composite outcome (weighted incidence rate per 100 person years 7.42 in rhythm control 9.25 in rate control; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.93; P=0.002). No difference in the risk of the primary composite outcome was found between rhythm and rate control (weighted incidence rate per 100 person years 8.67 in rhythm control 8.99 in rate control; 0.97, 0.78 to 1.20; P=0.76) in patients with late treatment for atrial fibrillation (initiated after one year since diagnosis). No significant differences in safety outcomes were found between the rhythm and rate control strategies across different treatment timings. Earlier initiation of treatment was linearly associated with more favourable cardiovascular outcomes for rhythm control compared with rate control.
Early initiation of rhythm control treatment was associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes than rate control treatment in patients with recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation. This association was not found in patients who had had atrial fibrillation for more than one year.
研究在诊断心房颤动与开始治疗之间的时间间隔是否会影响节律控制策略的结果。
纵向观察性队列研究。
来自韩国国民健康保险服务数据库的基于人群的队列。
2011 年 7 月 28 日至 2015 年 12 月 31 日期间,22635 例患有心房颤动和心血管疾病的成年人,接受节律控制(抗心律失常药物或消融)或心率控制策略治疗。
心血管原因死亡、缺血性卒中、心力衰竭住院或急性心肌梗死的复合结局。
在研究人群中,12200 名(53.9%)为男性,中位年龄为 70 岁,中位随访时间为 2.1 年。在心房颤动早期治疗(诊断后一年内开始)的患者中,与心率控制相比,节律控制与较低的主要复合结局风险相关(每 100 人年的加权发生率为 7.42 与 9.25;风险比 0.81,95%置信区间 0.71 至 0.93;P=0.002)。在心房颤动晚期治疗(诊断后一年开始)的患者中,节律控制和心率控制之间的主要复合结局风险无差异(每 100 人年的加权发生率为 8.67 与 8.99;0.97,0.78 至 1.20;P=0.76)。在不同治疗时间点,节律控制和心率控制策略的安全性结局无显著差异。与心率控制相比,节律控制的早期治疗与更有利的心血管结局相关。
与心率控制相比,在近期诊断为心房颤动的患者中,节律控制治疗的早期启动与不良心血管结局的风险降低相关。在诊断为心房颤动超过一年的患者中,未发现这种关联。