Aims: The AFFIRM and RACE studies showed that rate control is an acceptable treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF). We examined whether strict rate control offers benefit over more lenient rate control.
Methods and results: We compared the outcome of patients enrolled in the rate-control arms of AFFIRM and RACE, using data from patients who met a composite of overlapping inclusion and exclusion criteria. We evaluated 1091 patients, 874 from AFFIRM and 217 from RACE. In AFFIRM, the rate-control strategy aimed for a resting heart rate < or =80 bpm and heart rate during daily activity of < or =110 bpm. In RACE, a more lenient approach was taken: resting heart rate <100 bpm. Primary endpoint was a composite of mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and myocardial infarction. Mean heart rate across all follow-up visits for patients in AF was lower in AFFIRM (76.1 vs. 83.4 bpm). Event-free survival for the occurrence of the primary endpoint did not differ (64% in AFFIRM vs. 66% in RACE). Patients with mean heart rates during AF within the AFFIRM (< or =80) or RACE (<100) criteria had a better outcome than patients with heart rates > or =100 (hazard ratios 0.69 and 0.58, respectively, for < or =80 and <100 compared with > or =100 bpm).
Conclusion: Stringency of the approach to rate control, based on the comparison of the AFFIRM and RACE studies, was not associated with an important difference in clinical events.