TY - JOUR T1 - Rate control was more cost effective than rhythm control in persistent atrial fibrillation JF - Evidence Based Medicine JO - Evid Based Med SP - 59 LP - 59 DO - 10.1136/ebm.10.2.59 VL - 10 IS - 2 A2 - , Y1 - 2005/04/01 UR - http://ebm.bmj.com/content/10/2/59.abstract N2 - Hagens VE, Vermeulen KM, TenVergert EM, et al. Rate control is more cost-effective than rhythm control for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation—results from the RAte Control versus Electrical cardioversion (RACE) study. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1542–9.OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text 
 
 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 ★★★★★☆☆ 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 … ER -