Abstract

A RETROSPECTIVE COMPARATIVE STUDY ON RHYTHM CONTROL VS RATE CONTROL THERAPY IN ATRIAL FIBRILLATION BASED ON SUBSEQUENT OCCURRENCE OF OUTCOMES

*Dr. Malavika Surendran Nair, Dr. Anju Benson, Dr. Livina Mol Varghese, Dr. Akhila S. Arjun and Dr. Beena

ABSTRACT

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been projected to be a burgeoning health threat and is associated with stroke, heart failure, and death, imposing a substantial international health burden. The incidence of AF may be fueled by our population's advancing age and increased obesity, factors highly associated with and potentially causal for AF. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 5-fold increase in stroke and thromboembolism risk. For the rate control strategy of AF treatment, beta blockers, digoxin and diltiazem or verapamil were selected to control the heart rate in patients with AF. For the rhythm control strategy of AF treatment, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol and amiodarone were selected to maintain the sinus rhythm according to structure heart disease. For active rhythm control, electrical cardioversion and catheter ablation were considered. Our retrospective comparative study conducted on 150 patients presented the assessment
that decrease in heart rate was more in rate control therapy in atrial fibrillation. Though the three types of therapy control heart rate effectively. But less outcomes were seen in rate control therapy.

Keywords: AF -atrial fibrillation, HF – Heart failure, MI – myocardial infarction, CAD-coronary artery disease, HTN-hypertension, DM-diabetes mellitus, MRD -medical record department.