Rate control is not inferior to rhythm control for the prevention of death and morbidity from cardiovascular causes and may be appropriate therapy in patients with a recurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion.

In patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, lenient rate control is as effective as strict rate control and is easier to achieve. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00392613.)

BACKGROUNDIschemic heart disease is a major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The role of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of patients who have been successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest in the absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain. METHODSIn this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 552 patients who had cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI to undergo immediate coronary angiography or coronary angiography that was delayed until after neurologic recovery. All patients underwent PCI if indicated. The primary end point was survival at 90 days. Secondary end points included survival at 90 days with good cerebral performance or mild or moderate disability, myocardial injury, duration of catecholamine support, markers of shock, recurrence of ventricular tachycardia, duration of mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, occurrence of acute kidney injury, need for renal-replacement therapy, time to target temperature, and neurologic status at discharge from the intensive care unit. RESULTSAt 90 days, 176 of 273 patients (64.5%) in the immediate angiography group and 178 of 265 patients (67.2%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.27; P = 0.51). The median time to target temperature was 5.4 hours in the immediate angiography group and 4.7 hours in the delayed angiography group (ratio of geometric means, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36). No significant differences between the groups were found in the remaining secondary end points. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and had no signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be better than a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to overall survival at 90 days. (Funded by the Netherlands Heart Institute and others; COACT Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR4973.

IMPORTANCE Ischemic heart disease is a common cause of cardiac arrest. However, randomized data on long-term clinical outcomes of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest in the absence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are lacking.OBJECTIVE To determine whether immediate coronary angiography improves clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients after cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI, compared with a delayed coronary angiography strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA prespecified analysis of a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated 552 patients who were enrolled in 19 Dutch centers between January 8, 2015, and July 17, 2018. The study included patients who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm who were successfully resuscitated without signs of STEMI. Follow-up was performed at 1 year. Data were analyzed, using the intention-to-treat principle, between August 29 and October 10, 2019.INTERVENTIONS Immediate coronary angiography and PCI if indicated or coronary angiography and PCI if indicated, delayed until after neurologic recovery.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival, myocardial infarction, revascularization, implantable cardiac defibrillator shock, quality of life, hospitalization for heart failure, and the composite of death or myocardial infarction or revascularization after 1 year.RESULTS At 1 year, data on 522 of 552 patients (94.6%) were available for analysis. Of these patients, 413 were men (79.1%); mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.3) years. A total of 162 of 264 patients (61.4%) in the immediate angiography group and 165 of 258 patients (64.0%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.28). The composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or repeated revascularization since the index hospitalization was met in 112 patients (42.9%) in the immediate group and 104 patients (40.6%) in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.77-1.56). No significant differences between the groups were observed for the other outcomes at 1-year follow-up. For example, the rate of ICD shocks was 20.4% in the immediate group and 16.2% in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.66-2.64). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this trial of patients successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be superior to a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to clinical outcomes at 1 year. Coronary angiography in this patient group can therefore be delayed until after neurologic recovery without affecting outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR4973