Atrial fibrillation.

Abstract

The incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation are increasing because of both population ageing and an age-adjusted increase in incidence of atrial fibrillation. Deciding between a rate control or rhythm control approach depends on patient age and comorbidities, symptoms and haemodynamic consequences of the arrhythmia, but either approach is acceptable. Digoxin is no longer a first-line drug for rate control: beta-blockers and verapamil and diltiazem control heart rate better during exercise. Anti-arrhythmic drugs have only a 40%-60% success rate of maintaining sinus rhythm at 1 year, and have significant side effects. The selection of optimal antithrombotic prophylaxis depends on the patient's risk of ischaemic stroke and the benefits and risks of long-term warfarin versus aspirin, but is independent of rate or rhythm control strategy. Ischaemic stroke risk is best estimated with the CHADS2 score (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age > or = 75 years, Diabetes, 1 point each; prior Stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 2 points). For patients with valvular atrial fibrillation or a CHADS(2) score > or = 2, anticoagulation with warfarin is recommended (INR 2-3, higher for mechanical valves) unless contraindicated or annual major bleeding risk > 3%. Aspirin or warfarin may be used when the CHADS(2) score = 1. Aspirin, 81-325 mg daily, is recommended in patients with a CHADS(2) score of 0 or if warfarin is contraindicated. Stroke rate is similar for paroxysmal, persistent, and permanent atrial fibrillation, and probably for atrial flutter.