Objective The management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) following a myocardial infarction (MI) remains uncertain. This study compared a rate control strategy to an anti-arrhythmic-based rhythm control strategy for the treatment of AF following myocardial infarction.
Design, setting and patients We studied 1131 patients with AF after MI who were enrolled in the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT). We classified patients into those treated with a rhythm control strategy (n=371) and those treated with a rate control strategy (n=760).
Main outcomes measures Using Cox models, we compared the two groups with respect to both death and stroke during two different time periods after randomisation for which data collection had been pre-specified: 0–45 days and 45–1096 days.
Results After adjustment, a rhythm control strategy was found to be associated with increased early mortality (0–45 days: HR: 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0, p=0.004) but not late mortality (45–1096 days: HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.4, p=0.45). No difference was observed in the incidence of stroke (0–45 days: HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4 to 3.7, p=0.73; 45–1096 days: HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.3, p=0.21).
Conclusions In patients with AF after an MI, an anti-arrhythmic drug-based rhythm control strategy is associated with excess 45-day mortality compared with a rate control strategy, but is not associated with increased mortality outside of the immediate peri-infarct period. These results potentially identify a patient population in whom the use of anti-arrhythmic drug therapy may portend an increased risk of death.
- Atrial fibrillation
- myocardial infarction
- rate control
- rhythm control
- atrial arrhythmias
- acute coronary syndrome
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This analysis was supported, in part, by a grant from Glaxo-Smith Kline. The VALIANT trial was supported by a grant from Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Duke University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.