Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Q In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, is rate control more cost effective than rhythm control for reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality?
Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Internal medicine★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★☆☆
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 …
Linked Articles
- Glossary