Skip to main content
. 2014 Jan 31;9(1):e86443. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086443

Table 4. Management strategy chosen for AF (%).* .

Types of AF
Permanent
Nonpermanent All Controlled AF Uncontrolled AF p-value p-value
N = 5622 N = 4869 n = 2262 n = 2246 (controlled AF vs. uncontrolled AF) (nonpermanent vs. permanent)
Any type of cardioversion 0.018 <0.001
None 64.2 93.6 94.5 92.2
1 21.4 3.0 2.9 3.6
2 7.5 1.5 1.1 1.9
>2 6.9 1.9 1.6 2.3
Strategy before the visit 0.027 <0.001
Rhythm control 56.5 9.0 8.0 10.1
Rate control 27.5 84.2 85.9 83.2
Both 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
None 15.9 6.8 6.1 6.7
Strategy at the end of the visit <0.001 <0.001
Rhythm control 63.1 7.2 6.4 7.9
Rate control 30.9 88.3 87.7 89.6
Both 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
None 5.7 4.3 5.8 2.2
Evolution from rhythm-control strategy 0.015 <0.001
No change 89.4 60.4 64.4 55.6
Rate (± rhythm) 8.0 35.7 29.4 41.8
None 2.6 3.9 6.1 2.7
Evolution from rate-control strategy 0.12 <0.001
No change 78.3 97.9 97.8 98.1
Rhythm (± rate) 19.9 1.4 1.2 1.6
None 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.4

AF, atrial fibrillation.

Rate (± rhythm): rate control with or without rhythm control; rhythm (± rate): rhythm control with or without rate control.

*

Data are not complete for all patients: the reported percentage is for the number of patients with data available for each given variable.

Including pharmacologic cardioversion with AAD therapy and electrical cardioversion; data are not complete for all patients: the reported percentage is for the number of patients with data available for each given variable.

Table S6 shows management strategy for permanent AF patients according to revised definition of control used in the RACE II study, i.e., lenient control (in sinus rhythm or in AF with heart rate [HR] <110 beats per minute [bpm]) or no control (no sinus rhythm and in AF with HR ≥110 bpm).