HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Newman, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Newman, D.

Rate control was more cost effective than rhythm control in persistent atrial fibrillation

Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care IM/Ambulatory care Internal medicine Cardiology

Key Words: antiarrhythmia agents • anticoagulants • atrial fibrillation • electric countershock

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

METHODS
Design: cost effectiveness analysis (from a societal perspective) of a randomised controlled trial (RAte Control versus Electrical cardioversion [RACE]).

Allocation: concealed.^*

Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors and monitoring committee).^*

Follow up period: mean 2.3 years.

Setting: 31 centres in the Netherlands.

Patients: 522 patients who had recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation or flutter, 1–2 electrical cardioversions during the previous 2 years, and no contraindications to oral anticoagulation. Exclusion criteria: arrhythmia lasting >1 year, New York Heart Association class IV heart failure, current or previous treatment with amiodarone, or use of a pacemaker.

Intervention: rate control (n = 256) or rhythm control (n = 266). Rate control included use of digitalis, a non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, and a ß blocker, alone or in combination. Target resting heart rate was <100 beats/minute. Patients in the rhythm control group received serial electrical cardioversion and serial antiarrhythmic drugs using sotalol, 160–320 mg/day, as the first choice, . . . [Full text of this article]

David Newman, MD

University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada