RESUMO
The clinical choice between rate or rhythm control therapies has been debated over the years. In 2002, the AFFIRM trial demonstrated that the rhythm-control strategy had no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy. Eighteen years later, EAST-AFNET 4 showed that the rhythm-control approach is better than rate control in reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). During the time between AFFIRM and EAST-AFNET 4, rhythm control understanding, specifically ablation, improved, while rate-control strategies remained the same possibly leading to the change in results seen in EAST-AFNET 4. This review seeks to evaluate the rate- and rhythm-control strategies, focusing on the important clinical trials in the past two decades. These trials have shown great advancement in AF management; however, the search for the best approach to controlling AF and minimizing the burden of symptoms is still a work in progress and needs further research.