{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023809523809523808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.751824817518248, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A perspective on rate control in the treatment of atrial fibrillation

Until recently, the standard approach to therapy of atrial fibrillation (AF) in most cases was restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control). Although difficult to accomplish, and associated with potential serious adverse effects of antiarrhythmic agents, this therapeutic approach was influenced by the belief that rhythm control was associated with better survival, fewer symptoms, better exercise tolerance, lower risk of stroke, better quality of life, and absence of need for long‐term anticoagulation. However, four clinical trials comparing rate control with rhythm control have failed to demonstrate these advantages, indicating that rate control should be considered a legitimate primary therapeutic option, particularly in patients at risk for stroke. Pursuit of rate or rhythm control should be decided on a case‐by‐case basis.