Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:
===Studies of secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death===
===Studies of secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death===


1. '''AVID (The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators)<ref name="pmid9411221">{{cite journal| author=| title=A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1997 | volume= 337 | issue= 22 | pages= 1576-83 | pmid=9411221 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199711273372202 | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
1. '''CASCADE(The Cardiac Arrest in Seatle Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation study)<ref name="pmid8237833">{{cite journal| author=Greene HL| title=The CASCADE Study: randomized antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest in Seattle. CASCADE Investigators. | journal=Am J Cardiol | year= 1993 | volume= 72 | issue= 16 | pages= 70F-74F | pmid=8237833 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref> '''
 
* '''Strategy''': Amiodarone vs conventional therapy in patients with/without AICD
 
* '''Demographics''':  Total: 228 Amiodarone: 113 conventional antiarrhythmic drugs: 115(quinidine (n=33), procainamide (n = 26), combination therapy (n = 17), flecainide (n = 12). AICD: 105 (Amiodarone: 53, Conventional therapy: 52)
 
* '''Mean EF''': 35
 
* '''Result''': 13% more survival in patient population at the primary end point (total cardiac mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation, and syncopal Implanted defibrillator shocks) at the end of 6 years. (p=0.007).  With AICD 16% survival more at the primary end point( shocks preceded by complete syncope)(p=0.032) conclusively showing superiority of Amidarone over convetional therapy in secondary prevention.
 
2. ''' ESVEM (Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring for Selection of Antiarrhythmic Therapy of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias)<ref name="pmid8332149">{{cite journal| author=Mason JW| title=A comparison of electrophysiologic testing with Holter monitoring to predict antiarrhythmic-drug efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1993 | volume= 329 | issue= 7 | pages= 445-51 | pmid=8332149 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199308123290701 | pmc= | url= }} </ref><ref name="pmid8332150">{{cite journal| author=Mason JW| title=A comparison of seven antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1993 | volume= 329 | issue= 7 | pages= 452-8 | pmid=8332150 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199308123290702 | pmc= | url= }} </ref> '''
 
* '''Strategy''': EP testing and Holter monitor of 7 antiarrhythmics (imipramine, mexiletine, procainamide, quinidine, sotalol, pirmenol, propafenone)
 
* '''Demographics''':  486 patients were randomized and 296 patients were eventually followed up.
 
* '''Mean EF''': 33% in all 296 and 34% in Sotalol group
 
* '''Result''':  No difference between Holter- and EP-guided groups. Sotalol group had lowest recurrence rate of VT (risk ratio, 0.43; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.62; p<0.001), arrhythmic death (risk ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.96; P = 0.04), total death (risk ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.80; P = 0.004).
 
3. '''AVID (The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators)<ref name="pmid9411221">{{cite journal| author=| title=A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1997 | volume= 337 | issue= 22 | pages= 1576-83 | pmid=9411221 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199711273372202 | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''


* '''Strategy''': ICD vs medication either amiodarone or sotalol
* '''Strategy''': ICD vs medication either amiodarone or sotalol
Line 14: Line 34:
* '''Result''': Relative risk reduction: 1-year: 39% ; 2-year: 27% ; 3-year: 31% (p = 0.02)
* '''Result''': Relative risk reduction: 1-year: 39% ; 2-year: 27% ; 3-year: 31% (p = 0.02)


2. '''CIDS (Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study)<ref name="pmid10725290">{{cite journal| author=Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, Dorian P, Roy D, Sheldon RS et al.| title=Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS) : a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. | journal=Circulation | year= 2000 | volume= 101 | issue= 11 | pages= 1297-302 | pmid=10725290 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''  
4. '''CIDS (Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study)<ref name="pmid10725290">{{cite journal| author=Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, Dorian P, Roy D, Sheldon RS et al.| title=Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS) : a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. | journal=Circulation | year= 2000 | volume= 101 | issue= 11 | pages= 1297-302 | pmid=10725290 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''  


* '''Strategy''': ICD vs amiodarone
* '''Strategy''': ICD vs amiodarone
Line 24: Line 44:
* '''Result''': Relative risk reduction: 20% (p = 0.142)
* '''Result''': Relative risk reduction: 20% (p = 0.142)


3. '''CASH (Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg)<ref name="pmid10942742">{{cite journal| author=Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, Rüppel R| title=Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). | journal=Circulation | year= 2000 | volume= 102 | issue= 7 | pages= 748-54 | pmid=10942742 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
5. '''CASH (Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg)<ref name="pmid10942742">{{cite journal| author=Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, Rüppel R| title=Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). | journal=Circulation | year= 2000 | volume= 102 | issue= 7 | pages= 748-54 | pmid=10942742 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''


* '''Strategy''': ICD vs amiodarone vs beta blocker
* '''Strategy''': ICD vs amiodarone vs beta blocker
Line 34: Line 54:
* '''Result''': Relative risk reduction at 5 years: 23% (p = 0.081)
* '''Result''': Relative risk reduction at 5 years: 23% (p = 0.081)


4. '''CASCADE(The Cardiac Arrest in Seatle Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation study)<ref name="pmid8237833">{{cite journal| author=Greene HL| title=The CASCADE Study: randomized antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest in Seattle. CASCADE Investigators. | journal=Am J Cardiol | year= 1993 | volume= 72 | issue= 16 | pages= 70F-74F | pmid=8237833 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref> '''
* '''Strategy''': Amiodarone vs conventional therapy in patients with/without AICD
* '''Demographics''':  Total: 228 Amiodarone: 113 conventional antiarrhythmic drugs: 115(quinidine (n=33), procainamide (n = 26), combination therapy (n = 17), flecainide (n = 12). AICD: 105 (Amiodarone: 53, Conventional therapy: 52)
* '''Mean EF''': 35
* '''Result''': 13% more survival in patient population at the primary end point (total cardiac mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation, and syncopal Implanted defibrillator shocks) at the end of 6 years. (p=0.007).  With AICD 16% survival more at the primary end point( shocks preceded by complete syncope)(p=0.032) conclusively showing superiority of Amidarone over convetional therapy in secondary prevention.
5. ''' ESVEM (Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring for Selection of Antiarrhythmic Therapy of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias)<ref name="pmid8332149">{{cite journal| author=Mason JW| title=A comparison of electrophysiologic testing with Holter monitoring to predict antiarrhythmic-drug efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1993 | volume= 329 | issue= 7 | pages= 445-51 | pmid=8332149 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199308123290701 | pmc= | url= }} </ref><ref name="pmid8332150">{{cite journal| author=Mason JW| title=A comparison of seven antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1993 | volume= 329 | issue= 7 | pages= 452-8 | pmid=8332150 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199308123290702 | pmc= | url= }} </ref> '''
* '''Strategy''': EP testing and Holter monitor of 7 antiarrhythmics (imipramine, mexiletine, procainamide, quinidine, sotalol, pirmenol, propafenone)
* '''Demographics''':  486 patients were randomized and 296 patients were eventually followed up.
* '''Mean EF''': 33% in all 296 and 34% in Sotalol group
* '''Result''':  No difference between Holter- and EP-guided groups. Sotalol group had lowest recurrence rate of VT (risk ratio, 0.43; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.62; p<0.001), arrhythmic death (risk ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.96; P = 0.04), total death (risk ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.80; P = 0.004).




Line 88: Line 89:
* '''Result''':  Mortality : d-sotalol: 78 deaths (5.0%), Placebo: 48 deaths (3.1%) (relative risk 1.65 [95% CI 115–2.36], p=0.006). Presumed arrhythmic deaths (relative risk 1.77 [1.15–2.74], p=0.008). The effect was greater in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31–40% than in those with lower (≤30%) ejection fractions (relative risk 4.0 vs 1.2, p=0.007).
* '''Result''':  Mortality : d-sotalol: 78 deaths (5.0%), Placebo: 48 deaths (3.1%) (relative risk 1.65 [95% CI 115–2.36], p=0.006). Presumed arrhythmic deaths (relative risk 1.77 [1.15–2.74], p=0.008). The effect was greater in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31–40% than in those with lower (≤30%) ejection fractions (relative risk 4.0 vs 1.2, p=0.007).


5. '''EMIAT (The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial)<ref name="pmid9078197">{{cite journal| author=Julian DG, Camm AJ, Frangin G, Janse MJ, Munoz A, Schwartz PJ et al.| title=Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial Investigators. | journal=Lancet | year= 1997 | volume= 349 | issue= 9053 | pages= 667-74 | pmid=9078197 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=9078197  }} </ref>'''
8. '''CHF-STAT (Congestive heart failure: Survival trial of antiarrhythmic therapy)<ref name="pmid7539890">{{cite journal| author=Singh SN, Fletcher RD, Fisher SG, Singh BN, Lewis HD, Deedwania PC et al.| title=Amiodarone in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmia. Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1995 | volume= 333 | issue= 2 | pages= 77-82 | pmid=7539890 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199507133330201 | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''


* '''Strategy''': Amiodarone effect on reduction of mortality in patients of myocardial infarction with impaired ventricular function, irrespective of whether they had ventricular arrhythmias.
* '''Demographics''': Total: 674, Amiodarone: 336, Placebo: 338


* '''Demographics''': Total: 1486, Amiodarone : 743, Placebo : 743
* '''Strategy''': to determine whether Amiodarone can reduce overall mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias.


* '''Mean EF''': <40%
* '''Mean EF''': ≤40%, ≥10 PVCs/hr


* '''Result''': Amiodarone group, there was a 35% risk reduction (95% CI 0–58, p=0.05) in arrhythmic deaths.
* '''Result''': The rate of sudden death was 15% in the Amiodarone group and 19% in the placebo group in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy group (P=0.43). Reduction in overall mortality among the patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who received Amiodarone (P =0.07).


6. '''CAMIAT (The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial)<ref name="pmid9078198">{{cite journal| author=Cairns JA, Connolly SJ, Roberts R, Gent M| title=Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT. Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial Investigators. | journal=Lancet | year= 1997 | volume= 349 | issue= 9053 | pages= 675-82 | pmid=9078198 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=9078198  }} </ref>'''
9. '''MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial)<ref name="pmid8960472">{{cite journal| author=Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H et al.| title=Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1996 | volume= 335 | issue= 26 | pages= 1933-40 | pmid=8960472 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199612263352601 | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''


* '''Strategy''': To assess the effect of amiodarone on the risk of resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death among survivors of myocardial infarction with frequent or repetitive VPDs (≥10 VPDs per h or ≥1 run of ventricular tachycardia).
* '''Strategy''': Conventional medical therapy vs ICD in patients with clinical NSVT and inducible VT during EPS that is not suppressible with procainamide


* '''Demographics''': Total : 1202, Amiodarone : 606, Placebo: 596
* '''Demographics''': Medical therapy: 101 ICD arm: 95


* '''Mean EF''':
* '''Mean EF''': 35


* '''Result''': Efficacy Analysis: resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death – Placebo : 31 (6.0%) Amiodarone : 15 (3.3%) (relative-risk reduction 48.5% [95% CI 4.5 to 72.2], p=0.016). Intention-to-treat analysis: primary outcome events Placebo : 24 (6.9%) Amiodarone : 15 (4.5 (38.2% [95% CI –2.1 to 62.6], p=0.029). The absolute-risk reductions were greatest among patients with congestive heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction.
* '''Result''': RR reduction in mortality in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.26-0.82; p = 0.009


7. '''GESICA (the Gruppo de Estudo de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina)<ref name="pmid8989129">{{cite journal| author=Doval HC, Nul DR, Grancelli HO, Varini SD, Soifer S, Corrado G et al.| title=Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in severe heart failure. Independent marker of increased mortality due to sudden death. GESICA-GEMA Investigators. | journal=Circulation | year= 1996 | volume= 94 | issue= 12 | pages= 3198-203 | pmid=8989129 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
7. '''GESICA (the Gruppo de Estudo de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina)<ref name="pmid8989129">{{cite journal| author=Doval HC, Nul DR, Grancelli HO, Varini SD, Soifer S, Corrado G et al.| title=Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in severe heart failure. Independent marker of increased mortality due to sudden death. GESICA-GEMA Investigators. | journal=Circulation | year= 1996 | volume= 94 | issue= 12 | pages= 3198-203 | pmid=8989129 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
Line 118: Line 119:
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study: Mortality - NSVT: 87(50.3%) No NSVT: (30.9%) (RR = 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 2.24; P<.0002; Cox proportional hazard analysis was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.16; P<.001)). Sudden death – No NSVT: 8.7%, NSVT: 23.7% (RR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.78 to 4.44; P<.001). Progressive heart failure death – No NSVT: 17.5%, NSVT: 20.8% (P=.22). Couplets prediction of total all-cause mortality: RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.66; P<.002 ; sudden death: RR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.57 to 7.25; P<.0005. Couplets±NSVT prediction of sudden death: RR, 10.1; 95% CI, 1.91 to 52.7; P<.01.
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study: Mortality - NSVT: 87(50.3%) No NSVT: (30.9%) (RR = 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 2.24; P<.0002; Cox proportional hazard analysis was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.16; P<.001)). Sudden death – No NSVT: 8.7%, NSVT: 23.7% (RR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.78 to 4.44; P<.001). Progressive heart failure death – No NSVT: 17.5%, NSVT: 20.8% (P=.22). Couplets prediction of total all-cause mortality: RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.66; P<.002 ; sudden death: RR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.57 to 7.25; P<.0005. Couplets±NSVT prediction of sudden death: RR, 10.1; 95% CI, 1.91 to 52.7; P<.01.


8. '''CHF-STAT (Congestive heart failure: Survival trial of antiarrhythmic therapy)<ref name="pmid7539890">{{cite journal| author=Singh SN, Fletcher RD, Fisher SG, Singh BN, Lewis HD, Deedwania PC et al.| title=Amiodarone in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmia. Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1995 | volume= 333 | issue= 2 | pages= 77-82 | pmid=7539890 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199507133330201 | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
5. '''EMIAT (The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial)<ref name="pmid9078197">{{cite journal| author=Julian DG, Camm AJ, Frangin G, Janse MJ, Munoz A, Schwartz PJ et al.| title=Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial Investigators. | journal=Lancet | year= 1997 | volume= 349 | issue= 9053 | pages= 667-74 | pmid=9078197 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=9078197  }} </ref>'''
 
* '''Strategy''': Amiodarone effect on reduction of mortality in patients of myocardial infarction with impaired ventricular function, irrespective of whether they had ventricular arrhythmias.
 
* '''Demographics''': Total: 1486, Amiodarone : 743, Placebo : 743
 
* '''Mean EF''': <40%
 
* '''Result''': Amiodarone group, there was a 35% risk reduction (95% CI 0–58, p=0.05) in arrhythmic deaths.
 
 
 


* '''Demographics''':  Total: 674, Amiodarone: 336, Placebo: 338


* '''Strategy''': to determine whether Amiodarone can reduce overall mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias.
6. '''CAMIAT (The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial)<ref name="pmid9078198">{{cite journal| author=Cairns JA, Connolly SJ, Roberts R, Gent M| title=Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT. Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial Investigators. | journal=Lancet | year= 1997 | volume= 349 | issue= 9053 | pages= 675-82 | pmid=9078198 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=9078198  }} </ref>'''


* '''Mean EF''': ≤40%, ≥10 PVCs/hr
* '''Strategy''': To assess the effect of amiodarone on the risk of resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death among survivors of myocardial infarction with frequent or repetitive VPDs (≥10 VPDs per h or ≥1 run of ventricular tachycardia).


* '''Result''': The rate of sudden death was 15% in the Amiodarone group and 19% in the placebo group in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy group (P=0.43). Reduction in overall mortality among the patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who received Amiodarone (P =0.07).
* '''Demographics''': Total : 1202, Amiodarone :  606, Placebo: 596


9. '''MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial)<ref name="pmid8960472">{{cite journal| author=Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H et al.| title=Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1996 | volume= 335 | issue= 26 | pages= 1933-40 | pmid=8960472 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199612263352601 | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
* '''Mean EF''':


* '''Strategy''': Conventional medical therapy vs ICD in patients with clinical NSVT and inducible VT during EPS that is not suppressible with procainamide
* '''Result''': Efficacy Analysis: resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death – Placebo : 31 (6.0%) Amiodarone : 15 (3.3%) (relative-risk reduction 48.5% [95% CI 4.5 to 72.2], p=0.016). Intention-to-treat analysis: primary outcome events Placebo : 24 (6.9%) Amiodarone : 15 (4.5 (38.2% [95% CI –2.1 to 62.6], p=0.029). The absolute-risk reductions were greatest among patients with congestive heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction.


* '''Demographics''': Medical therapy: 101 ICD arm: 95


* '''Mean EF''': 35


* '''Result''': RR reduction in mortality in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.26-0.82; p = 0.009


10. '''CABG-PATCH (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial)<ref name="pmid10086963">{{cite journal| author=Bigger JT, Whang W, Rottman JN, Kleiger RE, Gottlieb CD, Namerow PB et al.| title=Mechanisms of death in the CABG Patch trial: a randomized trial of implantable cardiac defibrillator prophylaxis in patients at high risk of death after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. | journal=Circulation | year= 1999 | volume= 99 | issue= 11 | pages= 1416-21 | pmid=10086963 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
10. '''CABG-PATCH (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial)<ref name="pmid10086963">{{cite journal| author=Bigger JT, Whang W, Rottman JN, Kleiger RE, Gottlieb CD, Namerow PB et al.| title=Mechanisms of death in the CABG Patch trial: a randomized trial of implantable cardiac defibrillator prophylaxis in patients at high risk of death after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. | journal=Circulation | year= 1999 | volume= 99 | issue= 11 | pages= 1416-21 | pmid=10086963 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>'''
Line 147: Line 155:


* '''Result''': 31% RR reduction in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.51-0.93; p = 0.16
* '''Result''': 31% RR reduction in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.51-0.93; p = 0.16
15. '''MUSTT (the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial)<ref name="pmid10601507">{{cite journal| author=Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G| title=A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1999 | volume= 341 | issue= 25 | pages= 1882-90 | pmid=10601507 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199912163412503 | pmc= | url= }} </ref> '''
* '''Strategy''': Electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic therapy would reduce the risk of sudden death among patients with coronary artery disease, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 percent or less, and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia
* '''Demographics''': 704 patients who underwent randomization, 351 were assigned to receive electrophysiologically guided therapy and 353 were assigned to receive no antiarrhythmic therapy.
* '''Mean EF''': LVEF <40% + NSVT
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study:  Cardiac Arrest or Death from Arrhythmia - EP guided therapy = 25% no antiarrhythmic therapy = 32% (RR=0.73, CI=0.53-0.99). Cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia - Treatment with Defibrillators vs w/o Defibrillator Treatment (RR=0.24; CI=0.13-0.45; P<0.001).
16. '''MADIT II (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial - II)<ref name="pmid11907286">{{cite journal| author=Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS et al.| title=Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2002 | volume= 346 | issue= 12 | pages= 877-83 | pmid=11907286 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa013474 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=11907286  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=12418821 Review in: ACP J Club. 2002 Nov-Dec;137(3):81] </ref>'''
* '''Strategy''': To evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction are at risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias.
* '''Demographics''': Total: 1232, ICD: 742, Conventional Medical Therapy: 490 patients
* '''Mean EF''': ≤30% >10 PVCs/hr or couplets
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study: Mortality – Conventional Medical Therapy: 19.8%, ICD: 14.2%(HR 0.69 (95 CI= 0.51-0.93, P=0.016).


11. '''AMIOVIRT (Amiodarone versus Implantable Defibrillator)<ref name="pmid12767651">{{cite journal| author=Strickberger SA, Hummel JD, Bartlett TG, Frumin HI, Schuger CD, Beau SL et al.| title=Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia--AMIOVIRT. | journal=J Am Coll Cardiol | year= 2003 | volume= 41 | issue= 10 | pages= 1707-12 | pmid=12767651 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=12767651  }} </ref>'''
11. '''AMIOVIRT (Amiodarone versus Implantable Defibrillator)<ref name="pmid12767651">{{cite journal| author=Strickberger SA, Hummel JD, Bartlett TG, Frumin HI, Schuger CD, Beau SL et al.| title=Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia--AMIOVIRT. | journal=J Am Coll Cardiol | year= 2003 | volume= 41 | issue= 10 | pages= 1707-12 | pmid=12767651 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=12767651  }} </ref>'''
Line 177: Line 205:


* '''Result''': 62 deaths in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (p = 0.66; CI: 0.76-1.55). Arrhythmic causes were less in the ICD group but nonarrhythmic causes were significantly higher and thus overall mortality was not significantly different
* '''Result''': 62 deaths in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (p = 0.66; CI: 0.76-1.55). Arrhythmic causes were less in the ICD group but nonarrhythmic causes were significantly higher and thus overall mortality was not significantly different
17. '''COMPANION (The Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial )<ref name="pmid15152059">{{cite journal| author=Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T et al.| title=Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2004 | volume= 350 | issue= 21 | pages= 2140-50 | pmid=15152059 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa032423 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15152059  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15518444 Review in: ACP J Club. 2004 Nov-Dec;141(3):60] </ref>'''
* '''Strategy''': Prophylactic cardiac-resynchronization therapy in the form of biventricular stimulation with a pacemaker with or without a defibrillator would reduce the risk of death and hospitalization among patients with advanced chronic heart failure and intraventricular conduction delays.
* '''Demographics''': Total: 1520, Optimal Pharmacologic Therapy: 308, Cardiac- Resynchronization Therapy:  Pacemaker=617, Pacemaker– Defibrillator=595
* '''Mean EF''': Ischemic or nonischemic CM NYHA Class III-IV QRS ≥120 msec
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study: Pacemaker group - Primary end point mortality reduction (hazard ratio, 0.81; P=0.014), Pacemaker–defibrillator group (hazard ratio, 0.80; P=0.01). Primary end point mortality reduction: 34% - Pacemaker group (P<0.002), 40% - Pacemaker–Defibrillator group (P<0.001). Secondary end point mortality reduction: 24% - Pacemaker group (P=0.059), 36% - Pacemaker–Defibrillator group (P=0.003).


14. '''SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)<ref name="pmid15659722">{{cite journal| author=Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R et al.| title=Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2005 | volume= 352 | issue= 3 | pages= 225-37 | pmid=15659722 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa043399 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15659722  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15989294 Review in: ACP J Club. 2005 Jul-Aug;143(1):6] </ref>'''
14. '''SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)<ref name="pmid15659722">{{cite journal| author=Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R et al.| title=Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2005 | volume= 352 | issue= 3 | pages= 225-37 | pmid=15659722 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa043399 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15659722  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15989294 Review in: ACP J Club. 2005 Jul-Aug;143(1):6] </ref>'''
Line 188: Line 226:
* '''Result''': Amiodarone and placebo outcome were comparable. ICD arm absolute risk reduction: 7.2% after 5 years; RR: 23% (p = 0.007)
* '''Result''': Amiodarone and placebo outcome were comparable. ICD arm absolute risk reduction: 7.2% after 5 years; RR: 23% (p = 0.007)


15. '''MUSTT (the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial)<ref name="pmid10601507">{{cite journal| author=Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G| title=A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 1999 | volume= 341 | issue= 25 | pages= 1882-90 | pmid=10601507 | doi=10.1056/NEJM199912163412503 | pmc= | url= }} </ref> '''
* '''Strategy''': Electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic therapy would reduce the risk of sudden death among patients with coronary artery disease, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 percent or less, and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia
* '''Demographics''': 704 patients who underwent randomization, 351 were assigned to receive electrophysiologically guided therapy and 353 were assigned to receive no antiarrhythmic therapy.
* '''Mean EF''': LVEF <40% + NSVT
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study:  Cardiac Arrest or Death from Arrhythmia - EP guided therapy = 25% no antiarrhythmic therapy = 32% (RR=0.73, CI=0.53-0.99). Cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia - Treatment with Defibrillators vs w/o Defibrillator Treatment (RR=0.24; CI=0.13-0.45; P<0.001).


16. '''MADIT II (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial - II)<ref name="pmid11907286">{{cite journal| author=Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS et al.| title=Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2002 | volume= 346 | issue= 12 | pages= 877-83 | pmid=11907286 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa013474 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=11907286  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=12418821 Review in: ACP J Club. 2002 Nov-Dec;137(3):81] </ref>'''


* '''Strategy''': To evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction are at risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias.


* '''Demographics''': Total: 1232, ICD: 742, Conventional Medical Therapy: 490 patients


* '''Mean EF''': ≤30% >10 PVCs/hr or couplets
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study: Mortality – Conventional Medical Therapy: 19.8%, ICD: 14.2%(HR 0.69 (95 CI= 0.51-0.93, P=0.016).


17. '''COMPANION (The Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial )<ref name="pmid15152059">{{cite journal| author=Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T et al.| title=Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. | journal=N Engl J Med | year= 2004 | volume= 350 | issue= 21 | pages= 2140-50 | pmid=15152059 | doi=10.1056/NEJMoa032423 | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15152059  }}  [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15518444 Review in: ACP J Club. 2004 Nov-Dec;141(3):60] </ref>'''
* '''Strategy''': Prophylactic cardiac-resynchronization therapy in the form of biventricular stimulation with a pacemaker with or without a defibrillator would reduce the risk of death and hospitalization among patients with advanced chronic heart failure and intraventricular conduction delays.
* '''Demographics''': Total: 1520, Optimal Pharmacologic Therapy: 308, Cardiac- Resynchronization Therapy:  Pacemaker=617, Pacemaker– Defibrillator=595
* '''Mean EF''': Ischemic or nonischemic CM NYHA Class III-IV QRS ≥120 msec
* '''Result''': Efficacy Study: Pacemaker group - Primary end point mortality reduction (hazard ratio, 0.81; P=0.014), Pacemaker–defibrillator group (hazard ratio, 0.80; P=0.01). Primary end point mortality reduction: 34% - Pacemaker group (P<0.002), 40% - Pacemaker–Defibrillator group (P<0.001). Secondary end point mortality reduction: 24% - Pacemaker group (P=0.059), 36% - Pacemaker–Defibrillator group (P=0.003).




Revision as of 23:13, 12 January 2012

Ventricular tachycardia Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Ventricular Tachycardia from other Disorders

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Study of Choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

Echocardiography

Cardiac MRI

Other Diagnostic Tests

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Electrical Cardioversion

Ablation

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials

CDC onVentricular tachycardia landmark trials

Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials in the news

Blogs on Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials

to Hospitals Treating Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials

Risk calculators and risk factors for Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor-in Chief: Avirup Guha, M.B.B.S.[2]

Landmark Clinical Trials

Studies of secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death

1. CASCADE(The Cardiac Arrest in Seatle Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation study)[1]

  • Strategy: Amiodarone vs conventional therapy in patients with/without AICD
  • Demographics: Total: 228 Amiodarone: 113 conventional antiarrhythmic drugs: 115(quinidine (n=33), procainamide (n = 26), combination therapy (n = 17), flecainide (n = 12). AICD: 105 (Amiodarone: 53, Conventional therapy: 52)
  • Mean EF: 35
  • Result: 13% more survival in patient population at the primary end point (total cardiac mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation, and syncopal Implanted defibrillator shocks) at the end of 6 years. (p=0.007). With AICD 16% survival more at the primary end point( shocks preceded by complete syncope)(p=0.032) conclusively showing superiority of Amidarone over convetional therapy in secondary prevention.

2. ESVEM (Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring for Selection of Antiarrhythmic Therapy of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias)[2][3]

  • Strategy: EP testing and Holter monitor of 7 antiarrhythmics (imipramine, mexiletine, procainamide, quinidine, sotalol, pirmenol, propafenone)
  • Demographics: 486 patients were randomized and 296 patients were eventually followed up.
  • Mean EF: 33% in all 296 and 34% in Sotalol group
  • Result: No difference between Holter- and EP-guided groups. Sotalol group had lowest recurrence rate of VT (risk ratio, 0.43; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.62; p<0.001), arrhythmic death (risk ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.96; P = 0.04), total death (risk ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.80; P = 0.004).

3. AVID (The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators)[4]

  • Strategy: ICD vs medication either amiodarone or sotalol
  • Demographics: Total: 1016 ICD: 507 Medications (predominantly amiodarone): 509 (80% with ischemic heart disease)
  • Mean EF: 32 (inclusion<40)
  • Result: Relative risk reduction: 1-year: 39% ; 2-year: 27% ; 3-year: 31% (p = 0.02)

4. CIDS (Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study)[5]

  • Strategy: ICD vs amiodarone
  • Demographics: Total: 659 ICD: 328 Amiodarone: 331 (82% with ischemic heart disease)
  • Mean EF: <35
  • Result: Relative risk reduction: 20% (p = 0.142)

5. CASH (Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg)[6]

  • Strategy: ICD vs amiodarone vs beta blocker
  • Demographics: Total: 288 (74% with ischemic heart disease) ICD: 99 Amiodarone: 92 Metoprolol: 97
  • Mean EF: 45
  • Result: Relative risk reduction at 5 years: 23% (p = 0.081)



Trials of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

1. BHAT ( β-Blocker Heart Attack Trial)[7]

  • Strategy : multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial designed to test whether the regular administration of propranolol hydrochloride to men and women who had experienced at least one myocardial infarction would result in a significant reduction in total mortality during a two- to four-year period.
  • Demographics: Total: 3837, Propanolol: 1916, Placebo: 1921 persons, five to 21 days after the infarction.
  • Mean EF:
  • Result: Total mortality during the average 25-month follow-up period was 7.2% in the propranolol group and 9.8% in the placebo group. Arteriosclerotic heart disease (ASHD) mortality was 6.2% in the propranolol group and 8.5% in the placebo group.

2. CAST (The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial)[8][9]

  • Strategy: Suppression of ventricular ectopy after a myocardial infarction reduces the incidence of sudden death, patients in whom ventricular ectopy could be suppressed with encainide, flecainide, or moricizine were randomly assigned to receive either active drug or placebo
  • Demographics: Total: 1498 patients,Encainide+Placebo: 857(432 to active drug and 425 to placebo), Flecainide+Placebo: 641 (323 to active drug and 318 to placebo).
  • Mean EF: ≤40%
  • Result: 89 patients had died: 59 of arrhythmia (43 receiving drug vs. 16 receiving placebo; P = 0.0004), 22 of nonarrhythmic cardiac causes (17 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo; P = 0.01), and 8 of noncardiac causes (3 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo). Almost all cardiac deaths not due to arrhythmia were attributed to acute myocardial infarction with shock (11 patients receiving drug and 3 receiving placebo) or to chronic congestive heart failure (4 receiving drug and 2 receiving placebo). There were no differences between the patients receiving active drug and those receiving placebo in the incidence of nonlethal disqualifying ventricular tachycardia, proarrhythmia, syncope, need for a permanent pacemaker, congestive heart failure, recurrent myocardial infarction, angina, or need for coronary-artery bypass grafting or angioplasty.

3. SWORD (The Survival With Oral d-Sotalol trial)[10]

  • Strategy: whether d-sotalol, could reduce all-cause mortality in patients with Left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction .
  • Demographics: Total : 3121, d-Sotalol : 1549, placebo : 1572
  • Mean EF: 40%
  • Result: Mortality : d-sotalol: 78 deaths (5.0%), Placebo: 48 deaths (3.1%) (relative risk 1.65 [95% CI 115–2.36], p=0.006). Presumed arrhythmic deaths (relative risk 1.77 [1.15–2.74], p=0.008). The effect was greater in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31–40% than in those with lower (≤30%) ejection fractions (relative risk 4.0 vs 1.2, p=0.007).

8. CHF-STAT (Congestive heart failure: Survival trial of antiarrhythmic therapy)[11]

  • Demographics: Total: 674, Amiodarone: 336, Placebo: 338
  • Strategy: to determine whether Amiodarone can reduce overall mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias.
  • Mean EF: ≤40%, ≥10 PVCs/hr
  • Result: The rate of sudden death was 15% in the Amiodarone group and 19% in the placebo group in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy group (P=0.43). Reduction in overall mortality among the patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who received Amiodarone (P =0.07).

9. MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial)[12]

  • Strategy: Conventional medical therapy vs ICD in patients with clinical NSVT and inducible VT during EPS that is not suppressible with procainamide
  • Demographics: Medical therapy: 101 ICD arm: 95
  • Mean EF: 35
  • Result: RR reduction in mortality in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.26-0.82; p = 0.009

7. GESICA (the Gruppo de Estudo de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina)[13]

  • Strategy: To determine the prognostic value of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) in total mortality in severe congestive heart failure (CHF) and predictive value of NSVT as a marker for sudden death or death due to progressive heart failure.
  • Demographics: Total: 516, NSVT: 173 (33.5%), No NSVT: and 343 (66.5
  • Mean EF:
  • Result: Efficacy Study: Mortality - NSVT: 87(50.3%) No NSVT: (30.9%) (RR = 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 2.24; P<.0002; Cox proportional hazard analysis was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.22 to 2.16; P<.001)). Sudden death – No NSVT: 8.7%, NSVT: 23.7% (RR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.78 to 4.44; P<.001). Progressive heart failure death – No NSVT: 17.5%, NSVT: 20.8% (P=.22). Couplets prediction of total all-cause mortality: RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.66; P<.002 ; sudden death: RR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.57 to 7.25; P<.0005. Couplets±NSVT prediction of sudden death: RR, 10.1; 95% CI, 1.91 to 52.7; P<.01.

5. EMIAT (The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial)[14]

  • Strategy: Amiodarone effect on reduction of mortality in patients of myocardial infarction with impaired ventricular function, irrespective of whether they had ventricular arrhythmias.
  • Demographics: Total: 1486, Amiodarone : 743, Placebo : 743
  • Mean EF: <40%
  • Result: Amiodarone group, there was a 35% risk reduction (95% CI 0–58, p=0.05) in arrhythmic deaths.



6. CAMIAT (The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial)[15]

  • Strategy: To assess the effect of amiodarone on the risk of resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death among survivors of myocardial infarction with frequent or repetitive VPDs (≥10 VPDs per h or ≥1 run of ventricular tachycardia).
  • Demographics: Total : 1202, Amiodarone : 606, Placebo: 596
  • Mean EF:
  • Result: Efficacy Analysis: resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death – Placebo : 31 (6.0%) Amiodarone : 15 (3.3%) (relative-risk reduction 48.5% [95% CI 4.5 to 72.2], p=0.016). Intention-to-treat analysis: primary outcome events Placebo : 24 (6.9%) Amiodarone : 15 (4.5 (38.2% [95% CI –2.1 to 62.6], p=0.029). The absolute-risk reductions were greatest among patients with congestive heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction.



10. CABG-PATCH (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial)[16]

  • Strategy: CAD patients undergoing CABG with abnormal signal averaged ECG randomized to ICD or control group
  • Demographics: ICD epicardial: 446 Control arm: 45 Total: 900 30days and revascularization > 90 days) randomized 3:2 to ICD vs conventional medical therapy ICD: 42 Conventional medical therapy: 490
  • Mean EF: 30
  • Result: 31% RR reduction in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.51-0.93; p = 0.16

15. MUSTT (the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial)[17]

  • Strategy: Electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic therapy would reduce the risk of sudden death among patients with coronary artery disease, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 percent or less, and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia
  • Demographics: 704 patients who underwent randomization, 351 were assigned to receive electrophysiologically guided therapy and 353 were assigned to receive no antiarrhythmic therapy.
  • Mean EF: LVEF <40% + NSVT
  • Result: Efficacy Study: Cardiac Arrest or Death from Arrhythmia - EP guided therapy = 25% no antiarrhythmic therapy = 32% (RR=0.73, CI=0.53-0.99). Cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia - Treatment with Defibrillators vs w/o Defibrillator Treatment (RR=0.24; CI=0.13-0.45; P<0.001).

16. MADIT II (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial - II)[18]

  • Strategy: To evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular function after myocardial infarction are at risk for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias.
  • Demographics: Total: 1232, ICD: 742, Conventional Medical Therapy: 490 patients
  • Mean EF: ≤30% >10 PVCs/hr or couplets
  • Result: Efficacy Study: Mortality – Conventional Medical Therapy: 19.8%, ICD: 14.2%(HR 0.69 (95 CI= 0.51-0.93, P=0.016).

11. AMIOVIRT (Amiodarone versus Implantable Defibrillator)[19]

  • Strategy: Nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients with nonsustained VT, randomized to ICD vs amiodarone
  • Demographics: ICD: 51 Amiodarone: 52 Total: 103
  • Mean EF: 35
  • Result: No significant difference in survival

12. DEFINITE (Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation)[20]

  • Strategy: Nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients with nonsustained VT, randomized to ICD vs standard medical therapy
  • Demographics: Singlechamber ICD: 229 Standard medical therapy: 229 Total: 458 120 ms) in both ischemic and nonischemic causes 1520 randomized in 1:2:2 ratio to receive optimum pharmacological therapy, biventricular pacemaker alone or biventricular pacemaker defibrillator
  • Mean EF: 35
  • Result: Combined end point of hospitalization and death reduced by the pacemaker alone 34% (p = 0.002) and pacemaker-ICD by 40% (p = 0.001). Secondary end point all-cause mortality reduced by defibrillator by RR-36% (p = 0.003) but not by pacemaker alone. RR: 24% (p = 0.059)

13. DINAMIT (Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial)[21]

  • Strategy: Benefit of an ICD early after an MI within 6-40 days towards reduction of mortality when compared with medical therapy
  • Demographics: ICD: 332 Control: 342 Total: 674
  • Mean EF: 35
  • Result: 62 deaths in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (p = 0.66; CI: 0.76-1.55). Arrhythmic causes were less in the ICD group but nonarrhythmic causes were significantly higher and thus overall mortality was not significantly different

17. COMPANION (The Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure trial )[22]

  • Strategy: Prophylactic cardiac-resynchronization therapy in the form of biventricular stimulation with a pacemaker with or without a defibrillator would reduce the risk of death and hospitalization among patients with advanced chronic heart failure and intraventricular conduction delays.
  • Demographics: Total: 1520, Optimal Pharmacologic Therapy: 308, Cardiac- Resynchronization Therapy: Pacemaker=617, Pacemaker– Defibrillator=595
  • Mean EF: Ischemic or nonischemic CM NYHA Class III-IV QRS ≥120 msec
  • Result: Efficacy Study: Pacemaker group - Primary end point mortality reduction (hazard ratio, 0.81; P=0.014), Pacemaker–defibrillator group (hazard ratio, 0.80; P=0.01). Primary end point mortality reduction: 34% - Pacemaker group (P<0.002), 40% - Pacemaker–Defibrillator group (P<0.001). Secondary end point mortality reduction: 24% - Pacemaker group (P=0.059), 36% - Pacemaker–Defibrillator group (P=0.003).

14. SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)[23]

  • Strategy: To assess prognostic effect of ICD vs amiodarone vs placebo in class II and III heart failure regardless of etiology.
  • Demographics: Conventional therapy and placebo: 847 Conventional therapy and amiodarone: 845 Conventional therapy and single lead, shock only ICD: 829 Total: 2521
  • Mean EF: 35 (ischemic etiology patients 52% and nonischemic etiology 48%)
  • Result: Amiodarone and placebo outcome were comparable. ICD arm absolute risk reduction: 7.2% after 5 years; RR: 23% (p = 0.007)





References

  1. ↑ Greene HL (1993). "The CASCADE Study: randomized antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest in Seattle. CASCADE Investigators". Am J Cardiol. 72 (16): 70F–74F. PMID 8237833.
  2. ↑ Mason JW (1993). "A comparison of electrophysiologic testing with Holter monitoring to predict antiarrhythmic-drug efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators". N Engl J Med. 329 (7): 445–51. doi:10.1056/NEJM199308123290701. PMID 8332149.
  3. ↑ Mason JW (1993). "A comparison of seven antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators". N Engl J Med. 329 (7): 452–8. doi:10.1056/NEJM199308123290702. PMID 8332150.
  4. ↑ "A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators". N Engl J Med. 337 (22): 1576–83. 1997. doi:10.1056/NEJM199711273372202. PMID 9411221.
  5. ↑ Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, Dorian P, Roy D, Sheldon RS; et al. (2000). "Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS) : a randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone". Circulation. 101 (11): 1297–302. PMID 10725290.
  6. ↑ Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, Rüppel R (2000). "Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH)". Circulation. 102 (7): 748–54. PMID 10942742.
  7. ↑ "A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. I. Mortality results". JAMA. 247 (12): 1707–14. 1982. PMID 7038157.
  8. ↑ Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, Peters RW, Obias-Manno D, Barker AH; et al. (1991). "Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial". N Engl J Med. 324 (12): 781–8. doi:10.1056/NEJM199103213241201. PMID 1900101.
  9. ↑ "Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial II Investigators". N Engl J Med. 327 (4): 227–33. 1992. doi:10.1056/NEJM199207233270403. PMID 1377359.
  10. ↑ Waldo AL, Camm AJ, deRuyter H, Friedman PL, MacNeil DJ, Pauls JF; et al. (1996). "Effect of d-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent and remote myocardial infarction. The SWORD Investigators. Survival With Oral d-Sotalol". Lancet. 348 (9019): 7–12. PMID 8691967.
  11. ↑ Singh SN, Fletcher RD, Fisher SG, Singh BN, Lewis HD, Deedwania PC; et al. (1995). "Amiodarone in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmia. Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure". N Engl J Med. 333 (2): 77–82. doi:10.1056/NEJM199507133330201. PMID 7539890.
  12. ↑ Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, Daubert JP, Higgins SL, Klein H; et al. (1996). "Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial Investigators". N Engl J Med. 335 (26): 1933–40. doi:10.1056/NEJM199612263352601. PMID 8960472.
  13. ↑ Doval HC, Nul DR, Grancelli HO, Varini SD, Soifer S, Corrado G; et al. (1996). "Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in severe heart failure. Independent marker of increased mortality due to sudden death. GESICA-GEMA Investigators". Circulation. 94 (12): 3198–203. PMID 8989129.
  14. ↑ Julian DG, Camm AJ, Frangin G, Janse MJ, Munoz A, Schwartz PJ; et al. (1997). "Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial Investigators". Lancet. 349 (9053): 667–74. PMID 9078197.
  15. ↑ Cairns JA, Connolly SJ, Roberts R, Gent M (1997). "Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT. Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial Investigators". Lancet. 349 (9053): 675–82. PMID 9078198.
  16. ↑ Bigger JT, Whang W, Rottman JN, Kleiger RE, Gottlieb CD, Namerow PB; et al. (1999). "Mechanisms of death in the CABG Patch trial: a randomized trial of implantable cardiac defibrillator prophylaxis in patients at high risk of death after coronary artery bypass graft surgery". Circulation. 99 (11): 1416–21. PMID 10086963.
  17. ↑ Buxton AE, Lee KL, Fisher JD, Josephson ME, Prystowsky EN, Hafley G (1999). "A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial Investigators". N Engl J Med. 341 (25): 1882–90. doi:10.1056/NEJM199912163412503. PMID 10601507.
  18. ↑ Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, Klein H, Wilber DJ, Cannom DS; et al. (2002). "Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction". N Engl J Med. 346 (12): 877–83. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa013474. PMID 11907286. Review in: ACP J Club. 2002 Nov-Dec;137(3):81
  19. ↑ Strickberger SA, Hummel JD, Bartlett TG, Frumin HI, Schuger CD, Beau SL; et al. (2003). "Amiodarone versus implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:randomized trial in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia--AMIOVIRT". J Am Coll Cardiol. 41 (10): 1707–12. PMID 12767651.
  20. ↑ Kadish A, Dyer A, Daubert JP, Quigg R, Estes NA, Anderson KP; et al. (2004). "Prophylactic defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy". N Engl J Med. 350 (21): 2151–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa033088. PMID 15152060. Review in: ACP J Club. 2004 Nov-Dec;141(3):61
  21. ↑ Hohnloser SH, Kuck KH, Dorian P, Roberts RS, Hampton JR, Hatala R; et al. (2004). "Prophylactic use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator after acute myocardial infarction". N Engl J Med. 351 (24): 2481–8. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa041489. PMID 15590950. Review in: ACP J Club. 2005 May-Jun;142(3):58
  22. ↑ Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, Krueger S, Kass DA, De Marco T; et al. (2004). "Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure". N Engl J Med. 350 (21): 2140–50. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa032423. PMID 15152059. Review in: ACP J Club. 2004 Nov-Dec;141(3):60
  23. ↑ Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Packer DL, Boineau R; et al. (2005). "Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure". N Engl J Med. 352 (3): 225–37. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043399. PMID 15659722. Review in: ACP J Club. 2005 Jul-Aug;143(1):6


Template:WikiDoc Sources

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Ventricular_tachycardia_landmark_trials&oldid=620322"