Functional Status in Rate- Versus Rhythm-Control Strategies for Atrial Fibrillation
Results of the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Functional Status Substudy
Mina K. Chung, MD, FACC*,*,
Lynn Shemanski, PhD ,
David G. Sherman, MD ,
H. Leon Greene, MD, FACC,
David B. Hogan, MD ,
Joyce C. Kellen, RN, BN, MSc||,
Soo G. Kim, MD, FACC¶,
Lisa Warsinger Martin, MD#,
Yves Rosenberg, MD, MPH**,
D. George Wyse, MD for the AFFIRM Investigators
* Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio USA
Axio Research Corporation, Seattle, Washington USA
Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology, University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas USA
Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
|| Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
¶ Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York USA
# Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic Region, Washington, DC USA
** National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland USA
View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA-FC). Mean NYHA-FC at each visit. (A) Rate- versus rhythm-control randomized treatment. (B) Current atrial fibrillation (AF) status: current AF versus no current AF present at visit. The p values reflect comparisons between two groups from repeated measures analyses across all visits. N.S.= not significant.
|
|
View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Six-minute walk test distance. (A) Rate- versus rhythm-control randomized treatment. (B) Current atrial fibrillation (AF) status: current AF versus no current AF present at visit. The p values reflect comparisons between two groups from repeated measures analyses across all visits.
|
|
|
