This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sherman, D. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sherman, D. G. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs Embolic stroke

(Stroke. 2007;38:615.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Novel Approaches to Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Introduction

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Pharmacological Rate Versus Rhythm Control

David G. Sherman, MD

From the Ross J. Sibert Research Fund Distinguished Chair, Division of Neurology/Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.

Correspondence to David G. Sherman, Ross J. Sibert Research Fund Distinguished Chair, Division of Neurology/Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900. E-mail sherman{at}uthscsa.edu

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia associated with increased risk for embolic stroke. Restoration of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation is a logical strategy to prevent the cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications of this dysrhythmia. The most common strategy for restoration of sinus rhythm is pharmacological antiarrhythmic therapy with or without electrical cardioversion. Five randomized clinical trials compared rhythm to rate-control strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation. These trials examined mortality, thromboembolic complications, exercise tolerance, quality of life, hospital admissions and drug-related adverse reactions. Mortality ranged from 2.9% to 23.8% among the trial subjects randomized to rhythm control versus 1.0% to 21.3% in the rate control subjects. The risk of thromboemboli was greater: 2.9% to 7.9% in the rhythm-control subjects compared with 0% to 5.5% in the rate control subjects. Hospital admissions and drug-related adverse events were increased in the rhythm-control subjects. Stroke and systemic emboli occurred more often in the rhythm-control subjects many of whom had been withdrawn from anticoagulation. Rhythm-control offered no advantage compared with rate control for patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk for stroke. One explanation for this finding is that those patients thought to have been successfully converted to sinus rhythm in fact had asymptomatic paroxysmal episodes of atrial fibrillation increasing their risk of stroke because they were unprotected by anticoagulation. Pharmacological attempts to restore atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm do not improve mortality or reduce thromboembolic events. All patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk for stroke should be continued on long-term anticoagulation even if they appear to have been successfully restored to sinus rhythm.

Key Words: atrial fibrillation • antiarrhythmic drugs • cardioversion • stroke