2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(03)00332-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Randomized trial of rate-control versus rhythm-control in persistent atrial fibrillation

Abstract: The STAF pilot study showed no differences between the two treatment strategies in all end points except hospitalizations. These data suggest that there was no benefit in attempting rhythm-control in these patients with a high risk of arrhythmia recurrence. It remains unclear whether the results in the rhythm-control group would have been better if sinus rhythm had been maintained in a higher proportion of patients, as all but one end point occurred during AF.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
442
0
26

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 852 publications
(484 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
7
442
0
26
Order By: Relevance
“…In the STAF study, scores on the SF-36 physical role function and mental health domains significantly improved from baseline to follow up (mean duration, 19.5 months) in the rhythm-control group (both P < 0.05), despite the fact that only 70% of patients were in sinus rhythm after cardioversion and only 23% at 36 months. 28 In the PIAF study, SF-36 scores for physical functioning, physical role function, vitality, and social functioning improved significantly from baseline to Month 12 in the rhythm-control group (all P < 0.05), despite the fact that only 56% of patients in this group remained in sinus rhythm at the 12-month timepoint. 47 In patients with AF and CHF, improvements in LV function have been described even for patients who did not achieve 100% suppression of AF.…”
Section: Treatment Expectations: Defining Treatment Goalsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…In the STAF study, scores on the SF-36 physical role function and mental health domains significantly improved from baseline to follow up (mean duration, 19.5 months) in the rhythm-control group (both P < 0.05), despite the fact that only 70% of patients were in sinus rhythm after cardioversion and only 23% at 36 months. 28 In the PIAF study, SF-36 scores for physical functioning, physical role function, vitality, and social functioning improved significantly from baseline to Month 12 in the rhythm-control group (all P < 0.05), despite the fact that only 56% of patients in this group remained in sinus rhythm at the 12-month timepoint. 47 In patients with AF and CHF, improvements in LV function have been described even for patients who did not achieve 100% suppression of AF.…”
Section: Treatment Expectations: Defining Treatment Goalsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…52,53,54,55 These studies have demonstrated no difference in these endpoints. When interpreting the results of these studies, it is important to keep in mind the population of patients who were enrolled, the approach used for rhythm control, and the duration of follow-up.…”
Section: Section 2: Definitions Mechanisms and Rationale For Af Ablmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…[81][82][83][84] These studies highlighted the low clinical efficacy of current antiarrhythmic agents to maintain sinus rhythm. This probably contributes to the stroke risk associated with rhythm control, especially in a high-risk hypertensive population.…”
Section: Clinical Implicationmentioning
confidence: 99%