Skip to content

Lenient Rate Control Versus Strict Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation Randomised Clinical Trial

Lenient Rate Control Versus Strict Rate Control for Atrial Fibrillation. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) Randomised Clinical Trial

Status
Recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04542785
Acronym
DanAF
Enrollment
350
Registered
2020-09-09
Start date
2021-03-31
Completion date
2026-03-02
Last updated
2022-03-16

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Atrial Fibrillation, Persistent, Atrial Fibrillation Chronic, Atrial Fibrillation

Keywords

Rate control

Brief summary

Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart arrhythmia with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of death and morbidity. The comparable effects of a lenient rate control strategy and a strict rate control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation are uncertain and only one trial has assessed this previously in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. The investigators will therefore undertake a randomised, superiority trial at four hospitals in Denmark.

Interventions

Treatment will be provided according to current guidelines and as such the algorithm for treatment will be differentiated based on the status of left ventricular ejection fraction. For participants with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, beta-blockers (metoprolol and bisoprolol) will be the primary therapy. Secondary therapies may include digoxin or amiodarone. For participants with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, the primary therapy will be beta-blockers (metoprolol and bisoprolol) or non-dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (verapamil) with secondary therapy consisting of digoxin or amiodarone. Pacing therapies, alone or with atrioventricular node ablation, are utilised as indicated in the view of the treating physician.

Sponsors

Odense University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Hvidovre University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Zealand University Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Holbaek Sygehus
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

Outcome assessors will be blinded. Participants will not be informed of the heart rate target or actual heart rate. Treatment providers managing the heart rate target will not be blinded as the intervention requires information of the heart rate. Other treatment providers will not be informed of the heart rate target.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Participants with atrial fibrillation (ECG confirmed and diagnosed by the treatment provider) who at inclusion have either persistent (defined as atrial fibrillation for more than 7days) or permanent atrial fibrillation (only rate control is considered going forward). 2. Rate control must be accepted as being the primary management strategy going forward. Consideration towards whether rhythm control is more appropriate must be considered, especially given the results of the Early treatment of Atrial fibrillation for Stroke prevention Trial (EAST). 3. Informed consent. 4. Adult (18 years or older).

Exclusion criteria

1. No informed consent. 2. Initial heart rate under 80 bpm at rest (assessed via ECG before randomisation). 3. Less than 3 weeks of anticoagulation with new oral anticoagulants or 4 weeks with efficient warfarin if indicated. 4. If the treating physician deems that the participant is not fit to be randomised into both groups based on an individual assessment. Such a decision will be made before randomisation by the treating physician. This can e.g. be participants dependent on a high ventricular rate to maintain a sufficient cardiac output. Such participants could be participants with heart failure, participants with a hemodynamically significant valve dysfunction, or severely dehydrated participants. 5. Participants who are haemodynamically unstable and therefore require immediate electrical cardioversion

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component scoreAfter 1 year

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Days alive outside hospitalAfter 6 months
Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT)After 1 year
Short Form-36 (SF-36) mental component score1 year
Serious adverse events1 year

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Days alive outside hospitalAfter 1 year
Switch to rhythm control strategy1 year
Implantation of a pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator1 year
The questionnaire WorkQ1 year
Echocardiography - Left ventricle dimensionsAfter 1 year
All-cause mortality1 yearMortality regardless of cause.
Composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest.1 year
Cardiac mortality1 year
Stroke1 yearICD-10 codes I60-I63.
Hospitalisation for worsening of heart failure1 year
Echocardiography - systolic and diastolic functionAfter 1 year
Six-minute walking distance1 year
Physical activity measured using a trial accelerometer or similar1 year
Presence of sleep apnoea1 year
Heart rate1 year
Healthcare costs1 year
Various biomarkers1 year
Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT)After 2 years
Short Form-36 (SF-36) mental component scoreAfter 2 years
Serious adverse eventsAfter 2 years
Number of hospital admissions1 year
Echocardiography - Right ventricle dimensionAfter 1 year
Echocardiography - Atrial dimensionsAfter 1 year
Echocardiography - pulmonary pressureAfter 1 year
Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component scoreAfter 2 years

Countries

Denmark

Contacts

Primary ContactJoshua Feinberg, MD
jorf@regionsjaelland.dk+45 59484530

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 15, 2026