LAUSR

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Stroke prevention and rate or rhythm control are crucial in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). There is recent evidence for benefit of early rhythm control, yet rate control is the first choice in elderly patients. However, the efficacy and safety of rate and rhythm control in the elderly population remains largely unexplored. Therefore, we analyzed electronic health record data and investigated prescribing patterns and mortality of both strategies in elderly patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS Data from patients with AF who were aged ≥75 years, used a pharmacological rate or rhythm control strategy, and visited Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands between 2007 and 2018 were extracted. Of the 1,497 patients (54% female), 316 (21%) were prescribed rhythm control and 1,181 (79%) rate control. Patients aged >85 years (OR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.51-3.44, p<0.001) and those with permanent AF (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.67-4.41, p<0.001) were more likely to receive rate control, whereas those with paroxysmal AF were less likely to receive rate control (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.32-0.56, p<0.001). After correction for relevant confounders, the mortality risk for patients using rhythm control and patients using rate control was similar (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.70-1.12, p=0.31). CONCLUSION A more liberal approach towards prescribing a rhythm control strategy to the elderly patients with AF may be warranted and seems safe. Our data underscore the need for prospective studies to provide definite answers on efficacy and safety of rhythm control in elderly patients with AF.