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.
<h4>Background</h4>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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186856 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849418721690386432 |
|---|---|
| author | Naqash J Sethi Joshua Feinberg Emil E Nielsen Sanam Safi Christian Gluud Janus C Jakobsen |
| author_facet | Naqash J Sethi Joshua Feinberg Emil E Nielsen Sanam Safi Christian Gluud Janus C Jakobsen |
| author_sort | Naqash J Sethi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.<h4>Trial registration</h4>PROSPERO CRD42016051433. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-98bdfea5830e430c92a8fc89922c3229 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-98bdfea5830e430c92a8fc89922c32292025-08-20T03:32:23ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-011210e018685610.1371/journal.pone.0186856The 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.Naqash J SethiJoshua FeinbergEmil E NielsenSanam SafiChristian GluudJanus C Jakobsen<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.<h4>Trial registration</h4>PROSPERO CRD42016051433.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186856 |
| spellingShingle | Naqash J Sethi Joshua Feinberg Emil E Nielsen Sanam Safi Christian Gluud Janus C Jakobsen 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. PLoS ONE |
| title | 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. |
| title_full | 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. |
| title_fullStr | 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. |
| title_full_unstemmed | 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. |
| title_short | 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. |
| title_sort | 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 |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186856 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT naqashjsethi theeffectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT joshuafeinberg theeffectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT emilenielsen theeffectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT sanamsafi theeffectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT christiangluud theeffectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT januscjakobsen theeffectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT naqashjsethi effectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT joshuafeinberg effectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT emilenielsen effectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT sanamsafi effectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT christiangluud effectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis AT januscjakobsen effectsofrhythmcontrolstrategiesversusratecontrolstrategiesforatrialfibrillationandatrialflutterasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis |