Comparison of the rhythm control treatment strategy versus the rate control strategy in patients with permanent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy - a pilot study of Cardiac Resynchronization in Atrial Fibrillation Trial (Pilot-CRAfT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: Current State and Future Directions

Heart failure affects nearly 26 million people worldwide. Patients with heart failure are frequently affected with atrial fibrillation, and the interrelation between these pathologies is complex. Atrial fibrillation shares the same risk factors as heart failure. Moreover, it is associated with a higher-risk baseline clinical status and higher mortality rates in patients with heart failure. The mechanisms by which atrial fibrillation occurs in a failing heart are incompletely understood, but animal studies suggest they differ from those that occur in a healthy heart. Data suggest that heart failure-induced atrial fibrosis and atrial ionic remodeling are the underlying abnormalities that facilitate atrial fibrillation. Therapeutic considerations for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure include risk factor modification and guideline-directed medical therapy, anticoagulation, rate control, and rhythm control. As recommended for atrial fibrillation in the non-failing heart, anticoagulation in patients with heart failure should be guided by a careful estimation of the risk of embolic events versus the risk of hemorrhagic episodes. The decision whether to target a rate-control or rhythm-control strategy is an evolving aspect of management. Currently, both approaches are good medical practice, but recent data suggest that rhythm control, particularly when achieved through catheter ablation, is associated with improved outcomes. A promising field of research is the application of neurohormonal modulation to prevent the creation of the "structural substrate" for atrial fibrillation in the failing heart.

The effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter may be managed by either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy but the evidence on the clinical effects of these two intervention strategies is unclear. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, TRIP, EU-CTR, Chi-CTR, and ICTRP for eligible trials comparing any rhythm control strategy with any rate control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter published before November 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were stroke and ejection fraction. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analysis and chose the most conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and by calculating inconsistency (I²) for traditional meta-analyses and diversity (D²) for TSA. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the reasons for substantial statistical heterogeneity. We assessed the risk of publication bias in meta-analyses consisting of 10 trials or more with tests for funnel plot asymmetry. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.

Results

25 randomized clinical trials (n = 9354 participants) were included, all of which were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies significantly increased the risk of a serious adverse event (risk ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I² = 12% (95% CI 0.00 to 0.32); 21 trials), but TSA did not confirm this result (TSA-adjusted CI 0.99 to 1.22). The increased risk of a serious adverse event did not seem to be caused by any single component of the composite outcome. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies were associated with better SF-36 physical component score (mean difference (MD), 6.93 points; 95% CI, 2.25 to 11.61; P = 0.004; I² = 95% (95% CI 0.94 to 0.96); 8 trials) and ejection fraction (MD, 4.20%; 95% CI, 0.54 to 7.87; P = 0.02; I² = 79% (95% CI 0.69 to 0.85); 7 trials), but TSA did not confirm these results. Both meta-analysis and TSA showed no significant differences on all-cause mortality, SF-36 mental component score, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and stroke.

Conclusions

Rhythm control strategies compared with rate control strategies seem to significantly increase the risk of a serious adverse event in patients with atrial fibrillation. Based on current evidence, it seems that most patients with atrial fibrillation should be treated with a rate control strategy unless there are specific reasons (e.g., patients with unbearable symptoms due to atrial fibrillation or patients who are hemodynamically unstable due to atrial fibrillation) justifying a rhythm control strategy. More randomized trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42016051433