Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2003
Randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control in persistent atrial fibrillation: the Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) study.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carlsson Jörg, Miketic Sinisa, Windeler Jürgen, Cuneo Alessandro, Haun Sebastian, Micus Stefan, Walter Sabine, Tebbe Ulrich, STAF Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation(AF): rhythm-control (restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm) and rate-control (pharmacologic or invasive rate-control and anticoagulation).
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia. It is unclear whether a strategy of rhythm- or rate-control is better in terms of mortality, morbidity, and quality of life.
METHODS: The Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) multicenter pilot trial randomized 200 patients (100 per group) with persistent AF to rhythm- or rate-control. The combined primary end point was a combination of death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolism.
RESULTS: After 19.6 +/- 8.9 months (range 0 to 36 months) there was no difference in the primary end point between rhythm-control (9/100; 5.54%/year) and rate-control (10/100; 6.09%/year; p = 0.99). The percentage of patients in sinus rhythm in the rhythm-control group after up to four cardioversions during the follow-up period (rate-control group) was 23% (0%) at 36 months. Eighteen primary end points occurred in atrial fibrillation; only one occurred in sinus rhythm (p = 0.049).
CONCLUSIONS: The STAF pilot study showed no differences between the two treatment strategies in all end points except hospitalizations. These data suggest that there was no benefit in attempting rhythm-control in these patients with a high risk of arrhythmia recurrence. It remains unclear whether the results in the rhythm-control group would have been better if sinus rhythm had been maintained in a higher proportion of patients, as all but one end point occurred during AF.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia. It is unclear whether a strategy of rhythm- or rate-control is better in terms of mortality, morbidity, and quality of life.
METHODS: The Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (STAF) multicenter pilot trial randomized 200 patients (100 per group) with persistent AF to rhythm- or rate-control. The combined primary end point was a combination of death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolism.
RESULTS: After 19.6 +/- 8.9 months (range 0 to 36 months) there was no difference in the primary end point between rhythm-control (9/100; 5.54%/year) and rate-control (10/100; 6.09%/year; p = 0.99). The percentage of patients in sinus rhythm in the rhythm-control group after up to four cardioversions during the follow-up period (rate-control group) was 23% (0%) at 36 months. Eighteen primary end points occurred in atrial fibrillation; only one occurred in sinus rhythm (p = 0.049).
CONCLUSIONS: The STAF pilot study showed no differences between the two treatment strategies in all end points except hospitalizations. These data suggest that there was no benefit in attempting rhythm-control in these patients with a high risk of arrhythmia recurrence. It remains unclear whether the results in the rhythm-control group would have been better if sinus rhythm had been maintained in a higher proportion of patients, as all but one end point occurred during AF.