ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Clinical outcomes of rate control versus rhythm control as the initial strategy in atrial fibrillation: insights from the GLORIA-AF registry.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the era of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), it remains unclear whether rate control versus rhythm control as an initial treatment strategy affects the prognosis of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). This is a post hoc analysis of the prospective global GLORIA-AF registry aimed to compare the impact of rate control versus rhythm control as an initial treatment strategy on the prognosis in AF patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolism during a 24 month follow-up. A total of 20,571 patients were included in this study, including 8391 with rhythm control and 12,180 with rate control as an initial treatment strategy. Compared with rate control strategy, rhythm control strategy was associated with decreased risk of the primary endpoint (HR = 0.96, 95% CI, 0.95, 0.97, p < 0.001). However, propensity score matching analysis showed the primary endpoint was comparable between patients received rate control versus those with rhythm control (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.92, 1.03, p = 0.3). Subgroup analysis revealed an interaction between the initial treatment strategy and both the patients' geographic region and the presence of concomitant chronic kidney disease. In the era of NOACs, a post hoc analysis of the GLORIA-AF study did not show a major impact of rate control compared to rhythm control as an initial treatment strategy on the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and thromboembolism in patients with new-onset AF. In this post hoc analysis of the GLORIA-AF registry reflecting real-world clinical practice in the era of NOACs, no major difference was observed between rate control and rhythm control as initial treatment strategies with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and thromboembolism in patients with new-onset AF. Our results provide complementary real-world evidence to existing randomized trials and highlight the complexity of treatment selection in routine practice, suggesting that a more individualized approach may be warranted and that further prospective studies are needed to better define which patients may benefit most from different management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790410What 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.