>Why do you think people seek ablative procedures if just rate control was so great.<
Ablation is a separate issue n'est-ce pas?
As for anti-coagulation, i agree but will add that anti-coagulation is also recommended for rhythm control until patients show a sustained sinus rhythm (4 weeks in the case of the AFFIRM trial). As it stands, I'm not sure we have any data on how well V does 4 weeks out, so the reduction of anti-coagulant use for patients taking V would be merely hypothetical at this point. At least that is my understanding.
The additional point to consider is that *if* V does not maintain sinus rhythm for longer durations, then it will have to be repeatedly dosed. With repeated dosing comes increased risk of the ventricular fibrillation side effect rearing its ugly head.
I certainly won't disagree with you that rate vs rhythm control is far from a decided issue. However, speaking from an investment point of view, I would not be surprised if this drug does not achieve robust sales without additional data to demonstrate long term maintenance of sinus rhythm. And I would not be surprised if the panel brings up this point.
Just my two cents.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
