Background: In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, the presence of symptoms can guide the decision between rate or rhythm control therapy, but it is still unclear if AF-related outcomes are determined by symptomatic status of their clinical presentation.
Methods: We performed a systematic review and metanalysis following the PRISMA recommendations on available studies that compared asymptomatic to symptomatic AF reporting data on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and thromboembolic events (TEs). We included studies with a total number of patients enrolled equal to or greater than 200, with a minimum follow-up period of six months.
Results: From the initial 5476 results retrieved after duplicates' removal, a total of 10 studies were selected. Overall, 81,462 patients were included, of which 21,007 (26%) were asymptomatic, while 60,455 (74%) were symptomatic. No differences were found between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients regarding the risks of all-cause death (odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32), and cardiovascular death (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39). No differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic groups were evident for stroke (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77-1.93) and stroke/TE (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86-1.31) risks.
Conclusions: Mortality and stroke/TE events in AF patients were unrelated to symptomatic status of their clinical presentation. Adoption of management strategies in AF patients should not be based on symptomatic clinical status.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; meta-analysis; mortality; outcomes; stroke; symptoms.