Clinical Outcomes of Rate vs Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation in Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Benefits of early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation

In contrast to current guidelines and earlier trials, recent studies demonstrated superiority of rhythm- over rate-control and challenged the strategy of "rate versus rhythm" therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. These newer studies have started to shift the use of rhythm-control therapy from the symptom-driven therapy of current guidelines to a risk-reducing strategy aimed at restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm. This review discusses recent data and presents an overview on the current discourse: The concept of early rhythm control seems attractive. Patients with rhythm control may undergo less atrial remodeling compared to those with rate control. In addition, in EAST-AFNET 4 an outcome-reducing effect of rhythm control was achieved by delivering therapy with relatively few complications early after the initial AF diagnosis. Successful rhythm control therapy and most likely reduced AF burden, estimated by the presence of sinus rhythm at 12 months after randomization, explained most of the reduction in cardiovascular outcomes achieved by rhythm control. However, it is too early to call for early rhythm control for all AF patients. Rhythm control may raise concerns regarding the generalizability of trial results in routine practice involving important questions on the definition of "early" and "successful", and the relevant issue of antiarrhythmic drugs versus catheter ablation. Further information is required to select patients who will benefit from an early ablative or non-ablative rhythm management.

Assessment and Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults with Frailty

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major driver of morbidity and mortality among older adults with frailty. Moreover, frailty is highly prevalent in older adults with AF. Understanding and addressing the needs of frail older adults with AF is imperative to guide clinicians caring for older adults. In this review, we summarize current evidence to support the assessment and management of older adults with AF and frailty, incorporating numerous recent landmark trials and studies in the context of the 2023 US AF guideline.

Aging and atrial fibrillation: A vicious circle

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest sustained cardiac arrhythmia observed in clinical practice. Its prevalence increases dramatically with advancing age. This review article discusses the recent advances in studies investigating the relationship between aging and AF and the possible underlying mechanisms.

Relationship between Pharmacological Treatment Strategy and Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Background and question: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the total population. The aim of this study is to determine how geriatric patients with AF are treated in terms of rhythm or rate control and whether a relationship between the type of treatment and Mini Mental Status (MMS) can be identified.

METHODS

In this monocentric, prospective, observational study, data including chronic medication as well as demographic parameters were collected from all patients in a geriatric department between April 2021 and April 2022. A 12-lead ECG as well as the Mini Mental Status were recorded for all patients as part of the admission routine, and a 24 h ECG was performed in selected patients on the basis of clinical indication.

RESULTS

At baseline, 715 out of 1914 patients (37.4%) had a known history of AF. Of these patients, 43 patients (6%) were on rhythm control therapy (RHY) and 672 (94%) were on rate control therapy (RATE). No difference in respect to MMS could be detected between RHY and RATE. However, linear regression analyses showed that age, HASBLED score, creatinine serum level, and an existing antiplatelet medication were associated with a negative influence on MMS, whereas oral anticoagulation (OAC) was associated with improved MMS, respectively (p < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of geriatric patients with AF are treated with a rate control strategy. Oral anticoagulation is associated with better results in MMS, whereas patients who are treated with antiplatelet medication show worse results in MMS instead.

The effect of treatment strategy on long-term follow-up results in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in Turkey: AFTER-2 subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed a subanalysis of the data from the AFTER-2 registry. In our study, we aimed to compare the long-term follow-up results of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in Turkey according to their treatment strategies.

METHODS

All consecutive patients older than 18 years of age who presented to cardiology outpatient clinics, had at least one AF attack and did not have rheumatic mitral valve stenosis or prosthetic heart valve disease were included in our prospective study. The patients were divided into two groups as rhythm control and rate control. Stroke, hospitalization and death rates were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2592 patients from 35 centers were included in the study. Of these patients, 628 (24.2%) were in the rhythm control group and 1964 (75.8%) in the rate control group. New-onset ischemic cerebrovascular disease or transient ischemic attack (CVD/TIA) was detected at a lower rate in the rhythm control group (3.2% vs. 6.2% p = 0.004). However, there was no significant difference in one-year and five-year mortality rates (9.6% versus 9.0%, p = 0.682 and 31.8% versus 28.6%, p = 0.116, respectively). Hospitalization were found to be significantly higher in patients with rhythm control group (18% vs. 13%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

It was found that rhythm control strategy is preferred in AF patients in Turkey. We found a lower rate of ischemic CVD/TIA in patients in the rhythm control group. Although no difference was observed in mortality rates, we found a higher rate of hospitalization in the rhythm control group.

ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document: appropriate management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department

Atrial fibrillation (AF) accounts for 2% of the total presentations to the emergency department (ED) and represents the most frequent arrhythmic cause for hospitalization. It steadily increases the risk of thromboembolic events and is often associated with several comorbidities that negatively affect patient's quality of life and prognosis. AF has a considerable impact on healthcare resources, making the promotion of an adequate and coordinated management of this arrhythmia necessary in order to avoid clinical complications and to implement the adoption of appropriate technological and pharmacological treatment options. AF management varies across regions and hospitals and there is also heterogeneity in the use of anticoagulation and electric cardioversion, with limited use of direct oral anticoagulants. The ED represents the first access point for early management of patients with AF. The appropriate management of this arrhythmia in the acute setting has a great impact on improving patient's quality of life and outcomes as well as on rationalization of the financial resources related to the clinical course of AF. Therefore, physicians should provide a well-structured clinical and diagnostic pathway for patients with AF who are admitted to the ED. This should be based on a tight and propositional collaboration among several specialists, i.e. the ED physician, cardiologist, internal medicine physician, anesthesiologist. The aim of this ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document is to provide shared recommendations for promoting an integrated, accurate, and up-to-date management of patients with AF admitted to the ED or Cardiology Department, in order to make it homogeneous across the national territory.

Qualitative Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence–Based Clinical Decision Support System to Guide Rhythm Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Survey Study

Background

Despite the numerous studies evaluating various rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF), determination of the optimal strategy in a single patient is often based on trial and error, with no one-size-fits-all approach based on international guidelines/recommendations. The decision, therefore, remains personal and lends itself well to help from a clinical decision support system, specifically one guided by artificial intelligence (AI). QRhythm utilizes a 2-stage machine learning (ML) model to identify the optimal rhythm management strategy in a given patient based on a set of clinical factors, in which the model first uses supervised learning to predict the actions of an expert clinician and identifies the best strategy through reinforcement learning to obtain the best clinical outcome—a composite of symptomatic recurrence, hospitalization, and stroke.

Objective

We qualitatively evaluated a novel, AI-based, clinical decision support system (CDSS) for AF rhythm management, called QRhythm, which uses both supervised and reinforcement learning to recommend either a rate control or one of 3 types of rhythm control strategies—external cardioversion, antiarrhythmic medication, or ablation—based on individual patient characteristics.

Methods

Thirty-three clinicians, including cardiology attendings and fellows and internal medicine attendings and residents, performed an assessment of QRhythm, followed by a survey to assess relative comfort with automated CDSS in rhythm management and to examine areas for future development.

Results

The 33 providers were surveyed with training levels ranging from resident to fellow to attending. Of the characteristics of the app surveyed, safety was most important to providers, with an average importance rating of 4.7 out of 5 (SD 0.72). This priority was followed by clinical integrity (a desire for the advice provided to make clinical sense; importance rating 4.5, SD 0.9), backward interpretability (transparency in the population used to create the algorithm; importance rating 4.3, SD 0.65), transparency of the algorithm (reasoning underlying the decisions made; importance rating 4.3, SD 0.88), and provider autonomy (the ability to challenge the decisions made by the model; importance rating 3.85, SD 0.83). Providers who used the app ranked the integrity of recommendations as their highest concern with ongoing clinical use of the model, followed by efficacy of the application and patient data security. Trust in the app varied; 1 (17%) provider responded that they somewhat disagreed with the statement, “I trust the recommendations provided by the QRhythm app,” 2 (33%) providers responded with neutrality to the statement, and 3 (50%) somewhat agreed with the statement.

Conclusions

Safety of ML applications was the highest priority of the providers surveyed, and trust of such models remains varied. Widespread clinical acceptance of ML in health care is dependent on how much providers trust the algorithms. Building this trust involves ensuring transparency and interpretability of the model.

The Increasing Role of Rhythm Control in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The considerable mortality and morbidity associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) pose a substantial burden on patients and health care services. Although the management of AF historically focused on decreasing AF recurrence, it evolved over time in favor of rate control. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes using rhythm control, generally by using safe and effective rhythm-control therapies (typically antiarrhythmic drugs and/or AF ablation). Evidence increasingly supports early rhythm control in patients with AF that has not become long-standing, but current clinical practice and guidelines do not yet fully reflect this change. Early rhythm control may effectively reduce irreversible atrial remodeling and prevent AF-related deaths, heart failure, and strokes in high-risk patients. It has the potential to halt progression and potentially save patients from years of symptomatic AF; therefore, it should be offered more widely.

Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients 75 Years and Older: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing as the population ages. AF treatment-related complications also increase markedly in older adults (defined as ≥75 years of age for this review). The older AF population has a high risk of stroke, bleeding, and death. Syncope and fall-related injuries are the most common reasons for nonprescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC), and are more common in older adults when OACs are used with antiarrhythmic drugs. Digoxin may be useful for rate control, but associations with increased mortality limit its use. Beyond rate and rhythm control considerations, stroke prophylaxis is critical to AF management, and the benefits of direct OACs, compared with warfarin, extend to older adults. Invasive procedures such as AF catheter ablation, pacemaker implantation/atrioventricular junction ablation, and left atrial appendage occlusion may be useful in appropriately selected cases. However, older adults have generally been under-represented in clinical trials.

Rate and Rhythm Control Treatment in the Elderly and Very Elderly Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Observational Cohort Study of 1497 Patients

Stroke prevention and rate or rhythm control are crucial in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). There is recent evidence for benefit of early rhythm control, yet rate control is the first choice in elderly patients. However, the efficacy and safety of rate and rhythm control in the elderly population remains largely unexplored. Therefore, we analyzed electronic health record data and investigated prescribing patterns and mortality of both strategies in elderly patients with AF. Data from patients with AF who were aged ≥75 years, used a pharmacological rate or rhythm control strategy, and visited Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands between 2007 and 2018 were extracted. Of the 1497 patients (54% female), 316 (21%) were prescribed rhythm control and 1181 (79%) rate control. Patients aged >85 years (OR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.51-3.44, P< 0.001) and those with permanent AF (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.67-4.41, P< 0.001) were more likely to receive rate control, whereas those with paroxysmal AF were less likely to receive rate control (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.32-0.56, P< 0.001). After correction for relevant confounders, the mortality risk for patients using rhythm control and patients using rate control was similar (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12, P = 0.31). A more liberal approach towards prescribing a rhythm control strategy to the elderly patients with AF may be warranted and seems safe. Our data underscore the need for prospective studies to provide definite answers on efficacy and safety of rhythm control in elderly patients with AF.