Rhythm vs Rate Control Strategy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background Rhythm control, either with antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation, and rate control strategies are the cornerstones of atrial fibrillation (AF) management. Despite the increasing role of rhythm control over the past few years, it remains inconclusive which strategy is superior in improving clinical outcomes. Objectives This study summarizes the total and time-varying evidence regarding the efficacy of rhythm- vs rate-control strategies in the management of AF. Methods We systematically perused the MEDLINE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials from inception to November 2023. We included studies that compared the efficacy of rhythm control (ie, antiarrhythmic drugs classes Ia, Ic, or III, AF catheter ablation, and electrical cardioversion) and rate control (ie, beta-blocker, digitalis, or calcium antagonist) strategies among patients with nonvalvular AF. The primary outcome was cardiovascular (CV) death, whereas secondary outcomes included all-cause death, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HF), sinus rhythm at the end of the follow-up, and rhythm control–related adverse events. A cumulative meta-analysis to assess temporal trends and a meta-regression analysis using the percentage of ablation use was performed. Results We identified 18 studies with a total of 17,536 patients (mean age: 68.6 ± 9.7 years, 37.9% females) and a mean follow-up of 28.5 months. Of those, 31.9% had paroxysmal AF. A rhythm control strategy reduced CV death (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62-0.96), stroke (HR: 0.801; 95% CI: 0.643-0.998), and hospitalization for HF (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69-0.94) but not all-cause death (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.73-1.02) compared with a rate control strategy. This benefit was driven by contemporary studies, whereas more ablation use within the rhythm control arm was associated with improved outcomes, except stroke. Conclusions In patients with AF, a contemporary rhythm control strategy leads to reduced CV mortality, HF events, and stroke compared with a rate control strategy.