Search

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart arrhythmia globally and it adversely affects the quality of life (QoL). Available rate and rhythm control strategies equally reduce mortality but may impact QoL differently. A number of systematic reviews have focused on the impact of specific strategies on QoL, though a 2006 review synthesized the evidence on the effect of all strategies on QoL, allowing for a clinically important comparison between the types of strategies. Many trials have been published since the review undertook the search in 2005; therefore, an update is needed. This systematic review aims to provide an update to the 2006 review on the impact of all rate and rhythm control strategies on QoL in people with AF.MethodsThe following four databases and three clinical trial registries will be searched for primary studies: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu. No language restriction will be applied. The search will be limited to 2004 or later publication year to allow overlap with the search conducted by the 2006 review authors. Any randomized control trial that reports the QoL of adult (≥ 18 years) AF patients following an eligible rate or rhythm control intervention will be eligible for inclusion. Eligible interventions (and comparators) include pacing, atrioventricular node junction and bundle of HIS ablation, pharmacological therapy, radio frequency catheter ablation, cryoablation, pulmonary vein isolation, maze operation, pace maker implantation, and defibrillator implantation. Two reviewers will independently screen for eligible studies, extract the data using a piloted tool, and assess bias by QoL outcome using the RoB 2 tool. The suitability of conducting a meta-analysis will be assessed by the clinical and methodology similarities of included studies. If it is feasible, standardized mean differences will be pooled using a random-effects model and assessed appropriately.DiscussionThe findings from this review will allow for meaningful comparisons between various rate and rhythm control strategies regarding their impact on QoL. This review will be useful for a wide range of stakeholders and will be crucial for optimizing the overall wellbeing of AF patients. BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart arrhythmia globally and it adversely affects the quality of life (QoL). Available rate and rhythm control strategies equally reduce mortality but may impact QoL differently. A number of systematic reviews have focused on the impact of specific strategies on QoL, though a 2006 review synthesized the evidence on the effect of all strategies on QoL, allowing for a clinically important comparison between the types of strategies. Many trials have been published since the review undertook the search in 2005; therefore, an update is needed. This systematic review aims to provide an update to the 2006 review on the impact of all rate and rhythm control strategies on QoL in people with AF.MethodsThe following four databases and three clinical trial registries will be searched for primary studies: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu. No language restriction will be applied. The search will be limited to 2004 or later publication year to allow overlap with the search conducted by the 2006 review authors. Any randomized control trial that reports the QoL of adult (≥ 18 years) AF patients following an eligible rate or rhythm control intervention will be eligible for inclusion. Eligible interventions (and comparators) include pacing, atrioventricular node junction and bundle of HIS ablation, pharmacological therapy, radio frequency catheter ablation, cryoablation, pulmonary vein isolation, maze operation, pace maker implantation, and defibrillator implantation. Two reviewers will independently screen for eligible studies, extract the data using a piloted tool, and assess bias by QoL outcome using the RoB 2 tool. The suitability of conducting a meta-analysis will be assessed by the clinical and methodology similarities of included studies. If it is feasible, standardized mean differences will be pooled using a random-effects model and assessed appropriately.DiscussionThe findings from this review will allow for meaningful comparisons between various rate and rhythm control strategies regarding their impact on QoL. This review will be useful for a wide range of stakeholders and will be crucial for optimizing the overall wellbeing of AF patients.

Additional file 1. Topic guide for patient focus groups about AF and anticoagulation.