Rate control in permanent atrial fibrillation based on beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring using the volume clamp method

Aim. To assess how adjustment of rate control therapy in permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) affects beat-to-beat hemodynamic metrics derived from continuous beatto-beat blood pressure monitoring.

Material and methods. The study included 32 patients with permanent non-valvular AF (69,5±12,0 years; 20 men). Two 15-minute ECG recordings with synchronous beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring were obtained before and 14-17 days after initiation or adjustment of rate control therapy. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), MAP variability (average real variability (ARV), root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD)), the proportion of hemodynamically ineffective beats (HIB; at three relative pulse-pressure thresholds), heart rate (HR), RR variability indices (nRMSSD, CVRR, pNN10%), and the burden of short RR (proportion of RR intervals below an individual RRx threshold) were calculated.

Results. HR decreased from 106,6±12,1 to 85,4±10,5 bpm (p<0,001). The proportion of HIB decreased at all thresholds (mild 26,5±8,4→ 13,5±8,0%, moderate 15,2±8,8 → 6,0±6,8%, severe 6,8±5,4→ 2,4±3,6%; p for all <0,001). MAP remained stable (94,3±11,6 → 93,3±13,7 mm Hg; p=0,67), whereas MAP variability decreased (ARV and RMSSD: p for both <0,001). RR variability parameters increased (nRMSSD, CVRR, pNN10%; all p<0,001), and the burden of short RR fell from 37,5±12,5 to 12,7±9,7% (p<0,001). With β-blocker monotherapy, reductions in mild HIB and short-RR burden were more pronounced, whereas adding digoxin was associated with a greater increase in pNN10%. Despite consistent group-level trends, marked inter-individual differences in response were observed.

Conclusion. Adjustment of rate control therapy in permanent AF is associated with fewer HIBs, lower MAP variability and a reduced burden of short RR intervals without a decrease in mean MAP, thereby improving beat-to-beat hemodynamic metrics while preserving systemic blood pressure. The inter-individual heterogeneity of these effects at similar HRs supports personalized rate control strategies targeting not only average HR but also beat-to-beat hemodynamic parameters and warrants confirmation in larger prospective studies.

1. Van Gelder IC, Groenveld HF, Crijns HJGM, et al. Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(15):1363-73. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1001337.

2. Wyse DG, Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, et al. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(23):1825-33. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa021328.

3. Roy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(25):2667-77. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0708789.

4. Groenveld HF, Tijssen JGP, Crijns HJGM, et al. Rate control efficacy in permanent atrial fibrillation: successful and failed strict rate control against a background of lenient rate control. Data from RACE II. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(7):741-8. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.038.

5. Mulder BA, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Crijns HJGM, et al. Lenient versus strict rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a post-hoc analysis of the RACE II study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15(12):1311-8. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft093.

6. Passman R. Rate control for permanent atrial fibrillation: a RACE (II) worth running? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(7):749-51. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.039.

7. Golukhova EZ, Golitsyn SP, Mikhailov EN, et al. 2025 Clinical practice guidelines for Atrial fibrillation and flutter. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2025;30(11):6668. (In Russ.) doi:10.15829/1560-4071-2025-6668. EDN: MGXGON.

8. Van Gelder IC, Rienstra M, Bunting KV, et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2024;45(36):3314-414. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae176.

9. Rawles JM. A mathematical model of left ventricular function in atrial fibrillation. Int J Biomed Comput. 1988;23:51-68. doi:10.1016/0020-7101(88)90063-3.

10. Rawles JM. Atrial fibrillation. London: Springer-Verlag London; 1992. p. 243. ISBN: 978- 1-4471-1900-5. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-1898-5.

11. Bartosh LF, Bartosh FL, Shkadov SA, et al. The technique of optimal heart rate determination in patients with atrial fibrillation. Vestnik Novykh Meditsinskikh Tekhnologiy. 2013;20(1):42-5. (In Russ.)

12. Bartosh FL, Smirnova TP, Bartosh LF, et al. Effects of propranolol and carvedilol on hemodynamics in patients with atrial fibrillation and tachysystole during a pharmacologic test. Izv Vyssh Uchebn Zaved Povolzhskiy Region Med Nauki. 2012;3(23):43-51. (In Russ.)

13. Shubik YuV, Pivovarov VV, Zaytsev GK, et al. Beat-to-beat blood pressure measurement in atrial fibrillation: a new step towards personalized patient care. Vestn Aritmol. 2021;28(1):23-32. (In Russ.) doi:10.35336/VA-2021-1-23-32.

14. Korneev AB. Hemodynamic characteristics in patients with permanent atrial fibrillationacross different heart rate ranges and left ventricular ejection fraction levels using continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring. Vestn Aritmol. 2025;32(4):22-9. (In Russ.) doi:10.35336/VA-1523.

15. Corino VDA, Platonov PG, Enger S, et al. Circadian variation of variability and irregularity of heart rate in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation: relation to symptoms and ratecontrol drugs. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2015;309(12):H2152-H2157. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00300.2015.