心房細動と心不全(AF-CHF)

AF-CHFトライアルの結果、心房細動および心不全を有する患者は治療のゴールがリズムコントロールでもレートコントロールでも死亡率には差がないことが示された
AF-CHF trial suggests that patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure have comparable mortality whether treatment goal is control of heart rhythm or rate
AF-CHFトライアルの最終的なデータによると、心房細動および心不全を有する患者は治療法がリズムコントロールまたはレートコントロールのいずれかに関わらず死亡率が同等であることが示唆された、とAmerican Heart AssociationのLate-Breaking Clinical Trialセッションで発表された。計1,376人の患者がリズムコントロール(除細動と抗不整脈薬[初回選択薬としてアミオダロン、特定の症例においてはソタロールまたはdofetilide]の併用)またはレートコントロール(β遮断薬、ジゴキシン、または両方、および必要に応じペースメーカー)群に無作為に割り付けられた。両群ともに最大限の心不全治療および抗凝固療法を受けた。平均追跡期間37ヵ月での心血管死はリズムコントロール群で26.7%、レートコントロール群で25.2%であった。総死亡率(31.8%対32.9%)、脳卒中(2.6%対3.6%)および心不全増悪イベント(27.6%対30.8%)も両群間で同様であった。
Full Text

Final data from the AF-CHF trial suggest that patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure have comparable mortality regardless of treatment approach, control of heart rhythm or control of heart rate, according to a late-breaking clinical trial presentation at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association.

 

The Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial was a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial with 1,376 patients at 123 sites in Canada, the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Europe, and Israel.

 

In the trial, patients randomized to heart rhythm control underwent electrical cardioversion combined with antiarrhythmic therapy, using amiodarone as the initial drug of choice, with sotalol or dofetilide in specific cases.  In heart rate control, patients received titrated doses of beta-blockers and digoxin or both and pacemaker therapy if needed.  Both groups received optimal heart failure management and anticoagulation.

 

Patients were followed for an average of 37 months.   Cardiovascular death (the primary endpoint of the trial) occurred in 26.7 percent of patients in the rhythm-control group compared with 25.2 percent of patients in the rate-control group.

 

Total mortality (31.8 percent versus 32.9 percent), strokes (2.6 percent versus 3.6 percent) and worsening heart failure events (27.6 percent versus 30.8 percent) were also similar between rhythm control and rate control.

 

We found that rhythm control does not improve mortality when compared to rate control,” said Denis Roy, MD, principal investigator and professor and chair in the department of medicine at the University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.  “The results of the trial do not suggest that a strategy of rhythm control should be advocated for patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure.”