ABSTRACT
Although anticoagulant treatment of atrial fibrillation is now well codified, the medical treatment of the fibrillation remains controversial. Two types of medication can be proposed: drugs to slow the rhythm (digitalis, betablockers and calcium inhibitors) and anti-arrhythmic mainly Class I or Class III drugs. Some doubt was raised in the 1990's about the pertinence of antiarrhythmic therapy and four recent trials (AFFIRM, RACE, PIAF and STAF) compared the two attitudes of "rhythm control" or "rate control" in atrial fibrillation. The four trials all showed that the results of these two options were equivalent with respect to the therapeutic objectives: reduction of mortality, thromboembolic or haemodynamic risk, and regression of symptoms and improvement of the quality of life. However, these trials have not closed the debate on these two therapeutic attitudes. In fact, analysis shows that the comparison was biased because anticoagulant treatment was inadequate and, though the treatment for rate control was appropriate, the antiarrhythmic treatment was far from being satisfactory and effective. Moreover, many patients in the "rhythm control" group were in atrial fibrillation whereas a certain number of patients in the "rate control" group were, in fact, in sinus rhythm throughout the study period. In addition, the comparison was incomplete because it did not include two other particularly common populations in clinical practice: multi-relapsing paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in healthy hearts and atrial fibrillation associated with severe left ventricular dysfunction, patients with cardiac failure. Until the results of trials currently under way (AF-CHF) become available, the authors discuss the use of drugs for rate control and antiarrhythmic therapy in everyday practice.