We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
New-onset versus prior history of atrial fibrillation: Outcomes from the AFFIRM trial.
American Heart Journal 2015 July
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on prognosis and outcomes of patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with those with a prior history of AF.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a comparison of these 2 groups in the AFFIRM trial. New-onset AF was the qualifying arrhythmia in 1,391 patients (34%). Compared with patients with prior history of AF, patients with new-onset AF were more likely to have a history of heart failure. There was no mortality difference between rate control (RaC) and rhythm control (RhC) among patients with new-onset AF (17% vs 20%, P = .152). In the univariate model, new-onset AF was associated with increased risk of mortality compared with history of prior AF (RaC unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [P = .010], RhC unadjusted HR 1.39 [P = .003]). However, after multivariate adjustments, new-onset AF did not carry an increased risk of mortality (RaC adjusted HR 1.14 [P = .370], RhC adjusted HR 1.16 [P = .248]). Subjects with new-onset AF randomized to the RhC arm were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm at follow-up (adjusted HR 0.79, P = .012) compared with patients with prior history of AF.
CONCLUSIONS: In a multivariable analysis adjusting for confounders, new-onset AF was not associated with increased mortality compared with prior history of AF regardless of the treatment strategy. Patients with new-onset AF treated with the rhythm control strategy were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm on follow-up.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a comparison of these 2 groups in the AFFIRM trial. New-onset AF was the qualifying arrhythmia in 1,391 patients (34%). Compared with patients with prior history of AF, patients with new-onset AF were more likely to have a history of heart failure. There was no mortality difference between rate control (RaC) and rhythm control (RhC) among patients with new-onset AF (17% vs 20%, P = .152). In the univariate model, new-onset AF was associated with increased risk of mortality compared with history of prior AF (RaC unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.36 [P = .010], RhC unadjusted HR 1.39 [P = .003]). However, after multivariate adjustments, new-onset AF did not carry an increased risk of mortality (RaC adjusted HR 1.14 [P = .370], RhC adjusted HR 1.16 [P = .248]). Subjects with new-onset AF randomized to the RhC arm were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm at follow-up (adjusted HR 0.79, P = .012) compared with patients with prior history of AF.
CONCLUSIONS: In a multivariable analysis adjusting for confounders, new-onset AF was not associated with increased mortality compared with prior history of AF regardless of the treatment strategy. Patients with new-onset AF treated with the rhythm control strategy were more likely to remain in normal sinus rhythm on follow-up.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app