Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure Trial
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00597077|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : January 17, 2008
Last Update Posted : February 8, 2008
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Atrial Fibrillation Congestive Heart Failure||Other: Rate vs rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation Other: Rate vs rhythm control strategies in atrial fibrillation||Phase 4|
Congestive heart failure (CHF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are two important and growing problems in medicine and cardiology. Both conditions often co-exist and complicate each other's management. Two therapeutic strategies are available for patients with AF and CHF: the first aims at restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm, whereas, the second focuses exclusively on optimizing ventricular rate. The primary objective of the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial is to compare these two widely-used treatment strategies with respect to cardiovascular mortality.
Hypothesis: Restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm reduces cardiovascular mortality compared to a rate control treatment strategy in patients with AF and CHF.
Rationale: Despite new therapeutic interventions, the prognosis of heart failure patients remains grim with 5-year survival rates usually less than 50%. In most recent, large CHF trials, AF has been reported to be independently associated with increased mortality. Non-randomized observations also suggest that patients with AF in the setting of CHF have a greater tendency to revert to sinus rhythm during amiodarone therapy or with newer class III antiarrhythmic agents and that those who maintain a normal rhythm have a better prognosis. There is a need to determine whether a treatment strategy that attempts to maintain sinus rhythm will have a beneficial impact on cardiovascular mortality in CHF patients. This hypothesis has never been tested in a prospective, controlled, adequately-powered randomized trial.
Research Plan: AF-CHF is a prospective, multicentre clinical trial (100 centres in Canada, the USA, and Europe), that will randomize 1,450 NYHA class II-IV CHF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >/=35% (NYHA class I patients with prior hospitalization for CHF or ejection fraction </=25% are also eligible) and a history of significant AF (ECG documentation of either one episode lasting >/=6 hours within the past 6 months, or an episode lasting >/=10 minutes within the past 6 months in a patient with prior electrical cardioversion for AF) to one of two treatment strategies: 1) rhythm control with the use of electrical cardioversion if needed combined with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (amiodarone or other class III agents), and additional non-pharmacologic therapy in resistant patients, 2) rate control with the use of drugs (mainly beta-blockers plus digoxin) and/or pacemaker and AV nodal catheter ablation if necessary. The enrollment period will be completed within 2 years with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Both groups will receive optimal CHF management with ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers. Cardiovascular mortality will be the primary endpoint of the trial. The intention-to-treat approach will be the primary method of analysis. Secondary outcomes are total mortality, hospitalization, stroke, cost of therapy and quality of life. From recent trial data, we anticipate a 18.75% 2-year cardiovascular mortality in the rate control arm and a 25% reduction in cardiovascular mortality in the rhythm control group. Assuming a 2% loss to follow-up, a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and an annual accrual rate of 750 patients, we calculate that 722 patients per group (rounded total number of 1,450 patients) will be necessary to achieve a power of 0.80 when performing a log-rank test. The Research Centre of the Montreal Heart Institute will be the Coordinating and Methods Centre.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||1376 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF)Trial|
|Study Start Date :||April 2001|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||June 2007|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||October 2007|
|Active Comparator: Rate control||
Other: Rate vs rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation
Rate vs rhythm control strategies for atrial fibrillation
|Active Comparator: Rhythm control||
Other: Rate vs rhythm control strategies in atrial fibrillation
rate vs rhythm control strategies in atrial fibrillation
- cardiovascular death [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 6 years ]
- Total mortality [ Time Frame: Minimun of 2 years and a maxiumum of 6 years ]
- Stroke [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 6 years ]
- Worsening CHF [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and maximum of 6 years ]
- Hospitalization [ Time Frame: Minumum of 2 years and maximum of 6 years ]
- Composite endpoint of CV death and worsening CHF [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 6 years ]
- Composite endpoint of CV death, stroke and worsening CHF [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 6 years ]
- Quality of life/depression [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 6 years ]
- Cost of therapy [ Time Frame: Minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 6 years ]
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00597077
|Montreal Heart Institute|
|Montreal, Quebec, Canada, h1s2j2|
|Study Director:||Denis Roy||Montreal Heart Institute|