Rate control drugs differ in the prevention of progression of atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: We hypothesize that in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), verapamil is associated with lower AF progression compared to beta blockers or no rate control. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this pre-specified post hoc analysis of the RACE 4 randomized trial, the effect of rate control medication on AF progression in paroxysmal AF was analysed. Patients using Vaughan-Williams Class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were excluded. The primary outcome was a composite of first electrical cardioversion (ECV), chemical cardioversion (CCV), or atrial ablation. Event rates are displayed using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression analyses are used to adjust for baseline differences. Out of 666 patients with paroxysmal AF, 47 used verapamil, 383 used beta blockers, and 236 did not use rate control drugs. The verapamil group was significantly younger than the beta blocker group and contained more men than the no rate control group. Over a mean follow-up of 37 months, the primary outcome occurred in 17% in the verapamil group, 33% in the beta blocker group, and 33% in the no rate control group (P = 0.038). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients using verapamil have a significantly lower chance of receiving ECV, CCV, or atrial ablation compared to patients using beta blockers [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.83] and no rate control (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.93). CONCLUSION: In patients with newly diagnosed paroxysmal AF, verapamil was associated with less AF progression, as compared to beta blockers and no rate control.

Daily physical activity in stable heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is the only nonpharmacological therapy that is proven to be effective in heart failure (HF) patients in reducing morbidity. To date, little is known about the levels of daily physical activity in HF patients and about related factors. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (a) describe performance-based daily physical activity in HF patients, (b) compare it with physical activity guidelines, and (c) identify related factors of daily physical activity. METHODS: The daily physical activity of 68 HF patients was measured using an accelerometer (SenseWear) for 48 hours. Psychological characteristics (self-efficacy, motivation, and depression) were measured using questionnaires. To have an indication how to interpret daily physical activity levels of the study sample, time spent on moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activities was compared with the 30-minute activity guideline. Steps per day was compared with the criteria for healthy adults, in the absence of HF-specific criteria. Linear regression analyses were used to identify related factors of daily physical activity. RESULTS: Forty-four percent were active for less than 30 min/d, whereas 56% were active for more than 30 min/d. Fifty percent took fewer than 5000 steps per day, 35% took 5000 to 10 000 steps per day, and 15% took more than 10 000 steps per day. Linear regression models showed that New York Heart Association classification and self-efficacy were the most important factors explaining variance in daily physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: The variance in daily physical activity in HF patients is considerable. Approximately half of the patients had a sedentary lifestyle. Higher New York Heart Association classification and lower self-efficacy are associated with less daily physical activity. These findings contribute to the understanding of daily physical activity behavior of HF patients and can help healthcare providers to promote daily physical activity in sedentary HF patients.