ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Rate control or rhythm control strategies for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of stroke and thromboembolic events. We aimed to assess whether, in patients with AF, rate or rhythm control strategies reduce the risk for stroke or cardiovascular events. METHODS AND
resultsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rate control versus rhythm control strategies were systematically searched and included in a network meta-analysis (NMA). Co-primary outcomes were stroke within 1 year and stroke beyond 1 year from randomization. Twenty-one RCTs (35,447 patients) were included in the analyses. When stroke occurring any time after randomization was considered, antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD-Alone) had lower risk (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.80), AAD plus electrical cardioversion had higher risk (OR 4.01, 95% CI 1.32-12.13), while AAD plus rate control and ablation had similar risks, all in comparison to rate control. These differences disappeared in studies with use of anticoagulation ≥ 70% of patients. No differences were observed between rate control and individual rhythm control strategies concerning the risk for stroke within 1 year (seven studies; 19,339 patients) and beyond 1 year (10 studies; 10,325 patients). Ablation reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.85).
conclusionsIn patients with AF, the benefit of rhythm control over rate control for prevention of stroke disappears with appropriate anticoagulation. Catheter ablation reduces hospitalizations for heart failure compared to rate control. Rhythm control may offer benefits beyond stroke prevention, supporting a personalized treatment approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41524749What 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.