Editorial CommentThe treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), a well-known major clinical burden, mainly involves one of two approaches, rhythm or rate control. The first approach aims at reestablishing and maintaining sinus rhythm. The second approach applies to a majority of patients and aims at slowing the ventricular rate to a hemodynamically optimal level. As supported by abundant data, rate control is largely equivalent to rhythm control in terms of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, 1 even in systolic heart failure patients. 2 The present comment concerns the long-term clinical applicability of the developing strategy of ganglionic rate control.
Need for Alternative Rate Control TherapiesAs summarized in a comprehensive review, 3 different strategies are used or are currently being assessed to control the ventricular rate during AF. The primary strategy relies on negative dromotropic agents that impair atrioventricular node (AVN) function to a level achieving a suitable ventricular rate. However, contraindications, side effects, or inadequate rate control with these agents are frequently encountered in clinical practice. With failure of pharmacological rate control, a current strategy consists of AVN ablation combined with right ventricular or biventricular pacing. The obvious disadvantages of such an approach are the permanent nature of AVN ablation and pacemaker dependence. This approach also carries a risk of sudden death and of detrimental hemodynamic effects due to an abnormal ventricular activation sequence. 4 Biventricular pacing may obviate to this difficulty particularly in patients with systolic heart failure. 5 Another strategy under investigation is based on selective slow and/or fast AVN pathway ablation that may slow the ventricular rate while avoiding pacemaker implantation. However, this approach suffers from an inconsistent efficacy, frequent return to rapid ventricular rate, and inherent risk of thirddegree AVN block. 4 Another approach involves ablation of AVN inputs that spares the junctional pacemaker site and thus avoids dependence on a pacemaker device. 6 This approach still has a limited success rate and awaits formal validation. Two other futuristic rate control strategies have been developed. Gene therapy involving inhibitory G protein overexpression in AVN cells slows ventricular rate during AF in swine hearts. 7 TGFβ-treated autologous fibroblasts injected in AVN region also slow ventricular rate during AF in dogs. 8 These last two biological approaches still remain empirical.Closer to clinical applicability is the strategy tailored to decrease ventricular rate during AF by impairing AVN function through parasympathetic stimulation. Over the last decade, different approaches were developed to stimulate the right inferior ganglionic plexus (RIGP) that selectively innervates the AVN and thus constitutes a potential target to control the ventricular rate during AF. This development has already gone through several successful steps and now stands as a promising rate control thera...