Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Conditions
Brief summary
The investigators hypothesis is that in patients with permanent AF lenient rate control is not inferior to strict rate control in terms of cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, neurohormonal activation, NYHA class for heart failure, left ventricular function, left atrial size, quality of life and costs. Lenient rate control is defined as a resting heart rate \<110 bpm.Strict rate control is defined as a mean resting heart rate \< 80 beats per minute (bpm) and heart rate during minor exercise \< 110 bpm. Patients will be seen after 1, 2, 3 months (for titration of rate control drugs) and thereafter yearly.
Detailed description
Study objectives: 1. To show that lenient rate control is not inferior to strict rate control in terms of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity 2. To show that lenient rate control is not inferior to strict rate control in terms of all cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, NYHA class for exercise tolerance, left ventricular function and left atrial size, quality of life, neurohormonal activation as measured by NT-proBNP, hospitalization for heart failure, syncope, sustained ventricular tachycardia, appropriate shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing of ICD for ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and pacemaker implantations, stroke, systemic emboli, and bleeding, unstable angina pectoris and myocardial infarction, costs and renal function
Interventions
PROCEDUREStrict versus lenient rate control
Sponsors
Netherlands Heart Foundation
University Medical Center Groningen
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients with a current episode of permanent AF \< 12 months. * Age \</= 80 years. * Mean resting heart rate \> 80 beats per minute with or without rate control medication * Oral anticoagulation (or aspirin if no risk factors for thromboembolic complications are present).
Exclusion criteria
* Paroxysmal AF * Known contra-indications for either strict or lenient rate control (e.g. previous adverse effects on negative chronotropic drugs). * Unstable heart failure defined as NYHA IV heart failure and heart failure necessitating hospital admission \< 3 months before inclusion. * Cardiac surgery \< 3 months. * Any stroke. * Current or foreseen pacemaker and/ or cardiac resynchronization therapy. * Signs of sick sinus syndrome or AV conduction disturbances (i.e. symptomatic bradycardia or asystole \> 3 seconds or escape rate \< 40 beats per minute in awake symptom-free patients). * Untreated hyperthyroidism or \< 3 months euthyroidism. * Inability to walk or bike.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Life-threatening adverse effects of RC drugs | — |
| Cardiovascular mortality | — |
| Heart failure | — |
| Stroke | — |
| Bleeding | — |
| Syncope | — |
| Ventricular tachycardia | — |
| PM / ICD implantation | — |
| Cardiac arrest | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| All cause hospitalizations | — |
| Exercise tolerance | — |
| LV function and left atrial size | — |
| Quality of life | — |
| NT-proBNP | — |
| Costs | — |
| Renal function | — |
| All cause mortality | — |
Countries
Netherlands
Outcome results
None listed