New-onset supraventricular arrhythmia (NOSVA) is reported in 40 % of patients with septic shock and is associated with hemodynamic alterations and mortality. The lack of consensus regarding best practices for the management of NOSVA in this setting has led to major variations in practice patterns. Observational studies reported three usual strategies: (i) heart rate control (hereafter rate control) with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, essentially based on low dose of amiodarone, (ii) rhythm control with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs, essentially based on high dose of amiodarone, and electrical cardioversionand (iii) modifiable NOSVA risk factors control (hereafter risk control) without using antiarrhythmic drugs. Risk control would minimize adverse events of antiarrhythmic drugs. Rhythm control would rapidly improve haemodynamics via restoring diastole and decreasing cardiac metabolic demand, while minimizing exposure to anticoagulation. Heart-Rate control, would limit potential adverse events of high dose of amiodarone and of electrical cardioversion (only in patients intubated on mechanical ventilation), while controlling haemodynamics. Therefore, it seems important to compare these three strategies. Our hypothesis is dual: first, that heart-rate control and rhythm control each improve hemodynamics with in fine a decreased mortality, as compared to a risk control; second, that rhythm control outperforms rate control in this setting. This is a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of these three strategies (risk control, rate control and rhythm control) for NOSVA during septic shock.