Quality of life variables in the selection of rate versus rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: observations from the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

Many patients with atrial fibrillation develop symptoms attributable to the cardiac arrhythmia itself. These symptoms may be improved either by restoring sinus rhythm or by controlling the rapid and irregular ventricular response that often accompanies this arrhythmia. One of the principal goals of therapy of atrial fibrillation management is improvement of patient symptoms; it is important to quantify these symptoms by some form of quality of life analysis. The Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation (CTAF) was a multi-centre randomized clinical trial of amiodarone compared with either propafenone or sotalol in patients with recent atrial fibrillation. The quality of life (QOL) substudy of CTAF was a prospective, comprehensive assessment of quality of life of patients enrolled in CTAF. Summary measures of physical and mental health on the generic QOL scale (SF-36) improved significantly with treatment from baseline to 3 months (41.9 +/- 9.6 to 43.7 +/- 9.2, p = 0.001 for the physical component and 47.5 +/- 10.4 to 49.0 +/- 9.8, p = 0.023 for the mental component). On an arrhythmia specific scale (SCL), a significant and larger improvement was noted from baseline to 3 months in both arrhythmia symptom frequency and severity (symptom frequency from 20.4 +/- 9.4 to 16.2 +/- 9.5, symptom severity from 16.7 +/- 8.2 to 12.9 +/- 7.6, both p < 0.001). The quality of life improvements were similar in the amiodarone group compared to the sotalol or propafenone groups, both for the SF-36 and the disease-specific symptom checklist (SCL) measures. In contrast, an atrial fibrillation severity scale (AFSS) did show differences between the assigned drug therapies, which were associated with different rates of arrhythmia recurrence in the parent study. By 3 months global well-being was significantly worse for patients who had recurrent atrial fibrillation compared to those who did not (6.9 +/- 1.8 versus 7.4 +/- 1.8, p = 0.04). Similarly, symptom severity at 3 months was 11.8 +/- 7.4 for patients without recurrence, compared to 14.8 +/- 7.4 for those with recurrence ( p = 0.001). Interestingly, none of the usual clinical variables that might be perceived to be associated with quality of life, e.g., male versus female sex, age, NYHA class, beta blocker use, and ejection fraction, had much impact on subjective quality of life measures. Quality of life improves with treatment atrial fibrillation and at least some of these improvements are related to the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm.