Summary of historical landmark trials comparing rate vs. rhythm strategies in atrial fibrillation.
| Trial . | Ref . | N . | Age (years) . | Mean follow-up . | Proportion in sinus rhythm (rate vs. rhythm) . | Stroke or systemic embolism . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rate . | Rhythm . | ||||||
| PIAF (2000) | 13 | 252 | 61 ± 10 | 1 | 10% vs. 56% at 1 year | 0 | 1.6 |
| AFFIRM (2002) | 14 | 4060 | 70 ± 9 | 3.5 | 35% vs. 63% at 5 years | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| RACE (2002) | 15 | 552 | 68 ± 9 | 2.3 | 10% vs. 39% at 2.3 years | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| STAF (2003) | 16 | 200 | 66 ± 8 | 1.6 | 11% vs. 26% at 2 years | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| HOT CAFÉ (2004) | 17 | 205 | 61 ± 11 | 1.7 | NR vs. 64% | 1.0 | 2.9 |
| J-RHYTHM (2009) | 18 | 823 | 64 ± 11 | 1.6 | 44% vs. 73% at 3 years | 3.0 | 2.4 |
| Trial . | Ref . | N . | Age (years) . | Mean follow-up . | Proportion in sinus rhythm (rate vs. rhythm) . | Stroke or systemic embolism . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rate . | Rhythm . | ||||||
| PIAF (2000) | 13 | 252 | 61 ± 10 | 1 | 10% vs. 56% at 1 year | 0 | 1.6 |
| AFFIRM (2002) | 14 | 4060 | 70 ± 9 | 3.5 | 35% vs. 63% at 5 years | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| RACE (2002) | 15 | 552 | 68 ± 9 | 2.3 | 10% vs. 39% at 2.3 years | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| STAF (2003) | 16 | 200 | 66 ± 8 | 1.6 | 11% vs. 26% at 2 years | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| HOT CAFÉ (2004) | 17 | 205 | 61 ± 11 | 1.7 | NR vs. 64% | 1.0 | 2.9 |
| J-RHYTHM (2009) | 18 | 823 | 64 ± 11 | 1.6 | 44% vs. 73% at 3 years | 3.0 | 2.4 |
Adapted from Fuster et al.19
AFFIRM, Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management; HOT CAFÉ, How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation; J-RHYTHM, Japanese Rhythm Management Trial for Atrial Fibrillation; NR, not reported; PIAF, Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation; RACE, Rate Control vs. Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation; STAF, Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.
Summary of historical landmark trials comparing rate vs. rhythm strategies in atrial fibrillation.
| Trial . | Ref . | N . | Age (years) . | Mean follow-up . | Proportion in sinus rhythm (rate vs. rhythm) . | Stroke or systemic embolism . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rate . | Rhythm . | ||||||
| PIAF (2000) | 13 | 252 | 61 ± 10 | 1 | 10% vs. 56% at 1 year | 0 | 1.6 |
| AFFIRM (2002) | 14 | 4060 | 70 ± 9 | 3.5 | 35% vs. 63% at 5 years | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| RACE (2002) | 15 | 552 | 68 ± 9 | 2.3 | 10% vs. 39% at 2.3 years | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| STAF (2003) | 16 | 200 | 66 ± 8 | 1.6 | 11% vs. 26% at 2 years | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| HOT CAFÉ (2004) | 17 | 205 | 61 ± 11 | 1.7 | NR vs. 64% | 1.0 | 2.9 |
| J-RHYTHM (2009) | 18 | 823 | 64 ± 11 | 1.6 | 44% vs. 73% at 3 years | 3.0 | 2.4 |
| Trial . | Ref . | N . | Age (years) . | Mean follow-up . | Proportion in sinus rhythm (rate vs. rhythm) . | Stroke or systemic embolism . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rate . | Rhythm . | ||||||
| PIAF (2000) | 13 | 252 | 61 ± 10 | 1 | 10% vs. 56% at 1 year | 0 | 1.6 |
| AFFIRM (2002) | 14 | 4060 | 70 ± 9 | 3.5 | 35% vs. 63% at 5 years | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| RACE (2002) | 15 | 552 | 68 ± 9 | 2.3 | 10% vs. 39% at 2.3 years | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| STAF (2003) | 16 | 200 | 66 ± 8 | 1.6 | 11% vs. 26% at 2 years | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| HOT CAFÉ (2004) | 17 | 205 | 61 ± 11 | 1.7 | NR vs. 64% | 1.0 | 2.9 |
| J-RHYTHM (2009) | 18 | 823 | 64 ± 11 | 1.6 | 44% vs. 73% at 3 years | 3.0 | 2.4 |
Adapted from Fuster et al.19
AFFIRM, Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management; HOT CAFÉ, How to Treat Chronic Atrial Fibrillation; J-RHYTHM, Japanese Rhythm Management Trial for Atrial Fibrillation; NR, not reported; PIAF, Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation; RACE, Rate Control vs. Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation; STAF, Strategies of Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
