ArticleHeliyon2024
Rate control or rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been studied in clinical trials to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. Limited data exist on the effectiveness of rate or rhythm control therapy in these patients. Methods: Consecutive patients with AF and ACS or referred for PCI were prospectively recruited in Fuwai Hospital during 2017-2020. The primary endpoints were all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, non-central nervous system embolism and ischemia-driven revascularization. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regressions were performed to evaluate the association between rhythm/rate control and subsequent outcomes. For the primary endpoints, we used the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 1499 patients with AF and ACS or undergoing PCI were included, with a median follow-up of 34.7 months. Compared to non-rate control, rate control strategy reduced the risk of subsequent MACCEs (adjusted HR, 0.320; 95 % CI 0.220-0.466; p <0.001; *p <0.002) and all-cause death (adjusted HR, 0.148; 95 % CI 0.093-0.236; p <0.001; *p <0.002). Similar trends were observed across all predefined subgroups (p <0.001). In the final multivariate model, rhythm control was not associated with a lower subsequent MACCEs but significantly improved all-cause mortality compared to non-rhythm control (adjusted HR, 0.546; 95 % CI 0.313-0.951; p =0.033; *p =0.044). Conclusions: In this real-world study, rate control strategy was associated with lower risk of MACCEs and all-cause death in AF and ACS or undergoing PCI. Besides, management with rhythm control strategy may improve all-cause mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.