This Figure reports further results from the same survey reported in the previous Figure.  This time, when asked whether they actually employed a rate or a rhythm control strategy as the preferred option in their clinical practices, 60% of these same physicians replied that they used a rate control strategy, despite the benefits they perceived for a rhythm control with anticoagulation.[58] For the 22% of physicians who reported using a rhythm control strategy to treat the AFib, many reported that they did not feel the need to add anticoagulation therapy to protect against stroke.

Rothman SA. Am J Med 2013; 126: 00-00.