RESUMEN
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>The efficacy of rate and rhythm control strategies for treating atrial fibrillation (AF) patients was analyzed in this meta-analysis.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Eligible trials were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Clinical Trials, the Chinese VIP database up to May 31, 2010. Ten prospective randomized control trials with 7876 patients (rate control n = 3932, rhythm control n = 3944) were included for final analysis.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>All cause mortality (5.3% vs. 5.0%; OR: 1.03; 95%CI: 0.84 - 1.26; I(2) < 25%) and incidence of worsening heart failure (3.81% vs. 3.61%; OR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.80 - 1.36; I(2) < 50%) were similar between the two groups. Subgroup analysis showed that all cause mortality (3.6% vs.1.9%; OR: 1.89; 95%CI: 1.01 - 3.53; I(2) < 25%) and rate of worsening heart failure (2.3% vs. 0.3%; OR: 5.6; 95%CI: 1.44 - 21.69; I(2) < 25%) were significantly higher in rate control group than in rhythm control group in patients with age < 65 years. Thromboembolic events (1.49% vs. 1.46%; OR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.71 - 1.48) and bleeding events (1.78% vs. 1.73%; OR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.70 - 1.49) were similar between rhythm control and rate control groups while rehospitalization rate was significantly lower in rate control group than in rhythm control group (17.56% vs. 22.98%; OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.19 - 0.71).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>This meta-analysis shows that rhythm control strategy is superior to rate control strategy for AF patients with age < 65 years in terms of reducing all cause mortality and incidence of worsening heart failure.</p>