Lenient rate control versus strict rate control for atrial fibrillation: a protocol for the Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) randomised clinical trial
- PMID: 33789853
- PMCID: PMC8016086
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044744
Lenient rate control versus strict rate control for atrial fibrillation: a protocol for the Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) randomised clinical trial
Abstract
Introduction: Atrial fibrillation is the most common heart arrhythmia with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of death and morbidity. In many patients, a rate control strategy is recommended. The optimal heart rate target is disputed despite the results of the the RAte Control Efficacy in permanent atrial fibrillation: a comparison between lenient vs strict rate control II (RACE II) trial.Our primary objective will be to investigate the effect of lenient rate control strategy (<110 beats per minute (bpm) at rest) compared with strict rate control strategy (<80 bpm at rest) on quality of life in patients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation.
Methods and analysis: We plan a two-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. 350 outpatients with persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation will be recruited from four hospitals, across three regions in Denmark. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to a lenient medical rate control strategy (<110 bpm at rest) or a strict medical rate control strategy (<80 bpm at rest). The recruitment phase is planned to be 2 years with 3 years of follow-up. Recruitment is expected to start in January 2021. The primary outcome will be quality of life using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire (physical component score). Secondary outcomes will be days alive outside hospital, symptom control using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life, quality of life using the SF-36 questionnaire (mental component score) and serious adverse events. The primary assessment time point for all outcomes will be 1 year after randomisation.
Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained through the ethics committee in Region Zealand. The design and findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals as well as be made available on ClinicalTrials.gov.
Trial registration number: NCT04542785.
Keywords: adult cardiology; cardiology; pacing & electrophysiology.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: JBF (PI), IR, WB, EEN, FS-H, ODP, UG, CG and JCJ report no competing interests. MHO reports grants from Novo Nordic Foundation outside the submitted work. AB reports personal fees from Bayer, grants from Biotronik, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, personal fees from MSD, grants from Theravance, outside the submitted work. UD reports a research grant from Bayer, personal fees from Pfizer, member of advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim, member of advisory board for Merck, outside the submitted work.
References
- 
    - Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R. 2012 focused update of the ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Europace 2012;14:1385–413. - PubMed
 
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
- Full Text Sources
- Other Literature Sources
- Medical
 
        