You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Therapeutics/Prevention
Cohort study
Still many unanswered questions about rate control therapy in atrial fibrillation
  1. Mariëlle Kloosterman,
  2. Isabelle C Van Gelder
  1. Department of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to: Professor Isabelle C Van Gelder, Department of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands; i.c.van.gelder{at}umcg.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110413

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Chao TF, Liu CJ, Tuan TC, et al. Rate-control treatment and mortality in atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2015;132:1604–12OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text.

    Context

    Pharmacological management of heart rate, the mainstay of treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), is subjected to ongoing controversy.1 Two important questions yet to be answered in rate control therapy are; what constitutes the optimal heart rate during AF and which rate controlling drug should be instituted in the individual patient.

    Optimal heart rate in AF has been studied in one large randomised trial, the Rate Control Efficacy in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RACE II) study, which compared lenient versus strict rate control. RACE II showed that a lenient approach to rate control is easy, safe and effective and should be considered as an initial approach for those with few symptoms.2 However, randomised controlled trials on …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.