Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Gillinov, A. Marc
• Bagiella, Emilia
• Moskowitz, Alan J
• Raiten, Jesse M
• Groh, Mark A
• Bowdish, Michael E
• Ailawadi, Gorav
• Kirkwood, Katherine A
• Perrault, Louis P
• Parides, Michael K
• Smith, Robert L
• Kern, John A
• Dussault, Gladys
• Hackmann, Amy E
• Jeffries, Neal O
• Miller, Marissa A
• Taddei-Peters, Wendy C
• Rose, Eric A
• Weisel, Richard D
• Williams, Deborah L
• Mangusan, Ralph F
• Argenziano, Michael
• Moquete, Ellen G
• O’Sullivan, Karen L
• Pellerin, Michel
• Shah, Kinjal J
• Gammie, James S
• Mayer, Mary Lou
• Voisine, Pierre
• Gelijns, Annetine C
• O’Gara, Patrick T
• Mack, Michael J

Titel

Rate Control versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery

Ist Teil von

• The New England journal of medicine, 2016-05, Vol.374 (20), p.1911-1921

Ort / Verlag

United States: Massachusetts Medical Society

Erscheinungsjahr

2016

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• In this study involving patients with new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation who received either rate control or rhythm control, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or persistent atrial fibrillation 60 days after onset. In recent years, much research has focused on the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but highly effective interventions are lacking. Thus, postoperative atrial fibrillation remains the most common complication after cardiac surgery, with an incidence of 20 to 50%. 1 – 4 This complication has major adverse consequences for patients and the health care system, including increased rates of death, complications, and hospitalizations and inflated costs. 1 – 9 Therefore, efforts to determine the most effective preventive strategies and management practices are important. There are two general approaches to managing postoperative atrial fibrillation: heart-rate control (hereafter “rate control”) and rhythm control with . . .