Comparison of rhythm versus rate control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure subgroups: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Patients with concurrent heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have poor outcomes. Randomized clinical trials comparing rhythm control approaches to rate control of AF have yielded conflicting results and there is a paucity of updated and comprehensive evidence summaries to inform best practice in HF patients. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes with rhythm versus rate control of AF in various subgroups of HF patients. In HF patients overall, we found high certainty evidence that rhythm control decreased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR, 95 % confidence interval] 0.64 [0.43–0.94]) and HR 0.50 [0.34–0.74] respectively). Rhythm control was associated with decreased HF hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.79 [0.63–0.99], moderate certainty), but did not significantly decrease thromboembolic events (RR 0.67 [0.32–1.39], low certainty). The mean difference in left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] from baseline to last follow-up was greater in rhythm control group by 6.01 % [2.73–9.28 %] compared with rate control. Subgroup analyses by age, HF etiology (ischemic or non-ischemic), LVEF, presence of diabetes and hypertension did not reveal any significant differences in treatment effect. The survival and hospitalization reduction benefit of rhythm control of AF in HF patients likely reflects the success of catheter ablation especially in HF with reduced ejection fraction. These data are important to guide shared decision-making when managing AF in HF patients.