Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

By G. Nam. New England Journal of Medicine, 2010

961 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/54512a7a925f58f8a37775038d880c5a7b49042e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

1. Gerhard Hindricks
2. Gregory Y. H. Lip
3. A. Goette
4. Paulus Kirchhof
5. Ulrich Schotten
6. M. Flemmer
7. P. Marik

Citations in the corpus

• 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. (2014, neutral): “Lenient rate control strategy (resting heart rate <110 bpm) may be reasonable with asymptomatic patients and LV systolic function is preserved IIb B (100)”
• Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). (2010, methodology): “The recently published RACE II (RAte Control Efficacy in permanent atrial fibrillation) trial did not identify a benefit of stringent rate control over lenient rate control therapy in 614 patients randomized to either of these two therapy strategies.(98) Lenient rate control used a resting heart rat”
• Narrative Review (2012, background): “Furthermore, a strict rate-control strategy (resting heart rate <80 beats/min) offers no advantage over a more lenient rate-control strategy (resting heart rate <110 beats/min).(101)”