• Ioanna Koniari, Eleni Artopoulou, Dimitrios Velissaris, Virginia Mplani, Maria Anastasopoulou, Nicholas Kounis, Cesare de Gregorio, Grigorios Tsigkas, Arun Karunakaran, Panagiotis Plotas, and Ignatios Ikonomidis.
• Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M23 9LT, UK.
• Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 May 30; 58 (6).

AbstractAtrial fibrillation (AF) and Heart failure (HF) constitute two frequently coexisting cardiovascular diseases, with a great volume of the scientific research referring to strategies and guidelines associated with the best management of patients suffering from either of the two or both of these entities. The common pathophysiological paths, the adverse outcomes, the hospitalization rates, and the mortality rates that occur from various reports and trials indicate that a targeted therapy to the common background of these cardiovascular conditions may reverse the progression of their interrelating development. Among other optimal treatments concerning the prevalence of both AF and HF, the introduction of rhythm and rate control strategies in the guidelines has underlined the importance of sinus rhythm and heart rate control in the prevention of deleterious complications. The use of these strategies in the clinical practice has led to a debate about the superiority of rhythm versus rate control. The current guidelines as well as the published randomized trials and studies have not proved that rhythm control is more beneficial than the rate control treatments in the terms of survival, all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and quality of life. Therefore, the current therapeutic strategy is based on the therapy guidelines and the clinical judgment and experience. The aim of this review was to elucidate the endpoints of pharmacologic randomized clinical trials and the clinical data of each antiarrhythmic or rate-limiting medication, so as to promote their effective, individualized, evidence-based clinical use.

16 keywords...

hide…