Pharmacologic approaches to rhythm versus rate control in atrial fibrillation-where are we now?

Until recently, contemporary drug treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) focused primarily on restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, predicated on the belief that if AF is abolished then problems associated with AF would be abolished too. Recently completed clinical trials using drug therapy and comparing maintenance of sinus rhythm with control of ventricular rate have challenged this assumption, showing that simple control of ventricular rate with anticoagulation is an acceptable primary therapy, notably in older patients with persistent AF, minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic, and at increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, rate control and anticoagulation is not a panacea; existing trial results should not be interpreted to mean all patients should be treated with the rate control approach. Despite the limited efficacy and poor safety of current antiarrhythmic drugs, strategies for maintenance of sinus rhythm remain justified in many patients, such as those with first-episode AF, highly symptomatic patients, younger patients, and those with a history of congestive heart failure (CHF). Commonly used current and some investigational agents designated for “rhythm control” have enough pharmacologic overlap with rate control agents to be considered to have a dual mode of action, simultaneously addressing both rhythm and rate control. Furthermore, there is much interest in non-pharmacologic therapies, such as radiofrequency ablation, for rhythm control. The lack of appropriately designed and controlled trials at this time makes it difficult to determine the place of radiofrequency ablation and its impact on the rhythm versus rate question.