Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr;165(4):622-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.12.019. Epub 2013 Feb 20.

Rate versus rhythm control for management of atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry

Affiliations

Rate versus rhythm control for management of atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry

Benjamin A Steinberg et al. Am Heart J. 2013 Apr.

Abstract

Background: All patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) require optimization of their ventricular rate. Factors leading to use of additional rhythm control in clinical practice have not been thoroughly defined.

Methods: The ORBIT-AF registry enrolled patients with AF from a broad range of practice settings and collected data on rate versus rhythm control, as indicated by the treating physician. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with each strategy.

Results: Of 10,061 patients enrolled, 6,859 (68%) were managed with rate only control versus 3,202 (32%) with rhythm control. Patients managed with rate control were significantly older and more likely to have hypertension, heart failure, prior stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeds. They also had fewer AF-related symptoms (41% with no symptoms vs 31% for rhythm control). Systemic anticoagulation was prescribed for 5,448 (79%) rate-control patients versus 2,219 (69%) rhythm-control patients (P < .0001). After multivariable adjustment, patients with higher symptom scores (severe symptoms vs. none, OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.41-1.87) and those referred to electrophysiologists (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.45-1.85) were more likely to be managed with a rhythm control strategy.

Conclusions: In this outpatient registry of US clinical practice, the majority of patients with AF were managed with rate control alone. Patients with more symptoms and who were treated by an electrophysiologist were more likely to receive rhythm-control therapies. A significant proportion of AF patients, regardless of treatment strategy, were not treated with anticoagulation for thromboembolism prophylaxis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Unadjusted use of antithrombotic therapies. Aspirin only included aspirin/dipyridamole, (n = 14, 0.14%). Any ADP inhibitor included clopidogrel or prasugrel, with or without aspirin, but no oral anticoagulant. Systemic anticoagulation included warfarin or dabigatran (with any antiplatelet). *P < .05 for the comparison between rate control and rhythm control groups. ADP: adenosine diphosphate.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Unadjusted and adjusted comparisons of medical therapies between strategies. Multivariable rates adjusted for age, left atrial diameter, posterior wall thickness, level of education, site region, medical history of frailty, AF type, and provider specialty. BB, β-blocker; CCB, calcium-channel blocker.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with AF management strategy. Boxes denote adjusted OR with lines to 95% CIs.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Saksena S, Slee A, Waldo AL, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the AFFIRM Trial (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management): an assessment of individual antiarrhythmic drug therapies compared with rate control with propensity score-matched analyses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(19):1975–1985. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ionescu-Ittu R, Abrahamowicz M, Jackevicius CA, et al. Comparative effectiveness of rhythm control vs rate control drug treatment effect on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation rhythm vs rate control drug treatment. Arch Intern Med. 2012:1–8. - PubMed
    1. Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2011;123(10):e269–e367. - PubMed
    1. Camm AJ, Breithardt G, Crijns H, et al. Real-life observations of clinical outcomes with rhythm- and rate-control therapies for atrial fibrillation RECORDAF (Registry on Cardiac Rhythm Disorders Assessing the Control of Atrial Fibrillation) J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(5):493–501. - PubMed
    1. Nieuwlaat R, Prins MH, Le Heuzey JY, et al. Prognosis, disease progression, and treatment of atrial fibrillation patients during 1 year: follow-up of the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(9):1181–1189. - PubMed

Publication types