-
D G Wyse,
A L Waldo,
J P DiMarco,
M J Domanski,
Y Rosenberg,
E B Schron,
J C Kellen, H L Greene,
M C Mickel,
J E Dalquist,
S D Corley
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended.
We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality.
A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic.
Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients.
New England Journal of Medicine 01/2003; 347(23):1825-33. · 53.30 Impact Factor
-
F A Ehlert,
D S Cannom,
E G Renfroe, H L Greene,
R Ledingham,
L B Mitchell,
J L Anderson,
B D Halperin,
J M Herre,
R M Luceri,
R A Marinchak,
J S Steinberg
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The etiology of structural heart disease in patients with life-threatening arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia [VT]/ventricular fibrillation [VF]) may define clinical characteristics at presentation, may require that different therapies be administered, and may cause different mortality outcomes.
In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry, baseline clinical characteristics, treatments instituted, and ultimate mortality outcomes from the National Death Index were obtained on 3117 patients seen at participating institutions with VT/VF, irrespective of participation in the randomized trial. By use of these data, 2268 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) were compared with 334 patients with dilated nonischemic cardiomyopathy (DCM).
The CAD group was 7 years older and had a higher percentage of males. DCM patients were more likely to be African American, have severely compromised left ventricular function (52% vs 39%), and have a history of congestive heart failure symptoms (62% vs 44%). Patients with CAD were more likely to be treated with b-blockers and calcium channel blockers and less likely to be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Patients with DCM were more likely to be treated with diuretics, warfarin, and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator for VT/VF (54% vs 48% for CAD); the use of other antiarrhythmic therapies did not differ between the 2 groups. Two-year survival was not significantly different between the groups (76.6% [95% CI 74.6%-78.7%] vs 78.2% [95% CI 73.6%-82.9%]).
In AVID registry patients with VT/VF, demographic and clinical characteristics were different between patients with CAD and those with DCM. Despite these differences, overall survival was similar in these 2 groups.
American heart journal 12/2001; 142(5):816-22. · 4.65 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the prognosis of patients resuscitated from ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a transient or correctable cause suspected as the cause of the VT/VF.
Patients resuscitated from VT/VF in whom a transient or correctable cause has been identified are thought to be at low risk for recurrence and often receive no primary treatment for their arrhythmias.
In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, patients with a potentially transient or correctable cause of VT/VF were not eligible for randomization. The mortality of these patients was compared with the mortality of patients with a known high risk of recurrence of VT/VF in the AVID registry.
Compared with patients having high risk VT/VF, those with a transient or correctable cause for their presenting VT/VF were younger and had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction. These patients were more often treated with revascularization as the primary therapy, more commonly received a beta-blocker, less often required therapy for congestive heart failure and less commonly received either an antiarrhythmic drug or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Nevertheless, subsequent mortality of patients with a transient or correctable cause of VT/VF was no different or perhaps even worse than that of the primary VT/VF population.
Patients identified with a transient or correctable cause for their VT/VF remain at high risk for death. Further research is needed to define truly reversible causes of VT/VF. Meanwhile, these patients may require more aggressive evaluation, treatment and follow-up than is currently practiced.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 12/2001; 38(6):1718-24. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is generally considered that death is the only appropriate endpoint to evaluate interventions for preventing death; however, this belief may be based on the previous use of inappropriate or inadequate surrogates for death. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether rehospitalization following implementation of an intervention is a reasonable surrogate for death.
The time from discharge following intervention to rehospitalization was evaluated for 997 patients discharged after baseline hospitalization in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Trial. The relationship between rehospitalization for various reasons and subsequent death was compared in the two treatment arms to assess the adequacy of rehospitalization as a surrogate for death. Included were rehospitalization for: any reason, a cardiac problem, a noncardiac problem, new or worsened congestive heart failure (CHF), an acute coronary syndrome, and a cardiac procedure. For all of the reasons except cardiac procedure, rehospitalization was associated with a substantially increased hazard for subsequent death. Rehospitalization for new or worsened CHF was most closely (that is, temporally) related to subsequent death and was the only reason for rehospitalization, which fully explained the treatment effect of implantable cardiac defibrillators compared with antiarrhythmic drugs on death.
Rehospitalization is a significant risk factor for subsequent death. However, only rehospitalization for new or worsened CHF appears to be a potential surrogate for death in the setting of antiarrhythmic interventions.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 10/2001; 12(9):990-5. · 3.06 Impact Factor
-
J S Steinberg,
K Beckman, H L Greene,
R Marinchak,
R C Klein,
S G Greer,
F Ehlert,
P Foster,
E Menchavez,
M Raitt,
M S Wathen,
M Morris,
A Hallstrom
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A prospective registry and substudy were conducted in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study to clarify the prognosis and recurrent event rate, risk factors, and impact of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease, and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias.
Included in the AVID registry were patients from all participating sites who had "out of hospital syncope with structural heart disease and EP-inducible VT/VF with symptoms." In addition, 13 collaborating sites provided more in-depth clinical and electrophysiologic data as part of a formal prospective substudy. Patients in the substudy were followed by local investigators for recurrent arrhythmic events and mortality. Registry patients were tracked for fatal outcomes by the National Death Index. A total of 429 patients with syncope were entered in the AVID registry, of whom 80 participated in the substudy. Of the substudy patients, 21 patients (26%) had inducible polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF), 11 patients (14%) had sustained monomorphic VT <200 beats/min, and 48 patients (60%) had sustained monomorphic VT > or = 200 beats/min. The ICD was used as sole therapy in 75% of the syncope substudy patients (and with antiarrhythmic drug in an additional 9%) and in 59% of the syncope registry patients. Survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 93% and 74% for the substudy patients and 90% and 74% for the registry patients, respectively. Survival of the syncope substudy patients (predominantly treated by ICD) was similar to the VT patients treated by ICD and superior to the VT patients treated by an antiarrhythmic drug (P = 0.05) in the randomized main trial. Mortality events in the substudy were marginally predicted by ejection fraction (P = 0.06) but not by electrophysiologic study-induced arrhythmia. The significant predictor of increased mortality in the registry was age (P = 0.003) and of reduced mortality was treatment with ICD (P = 0.006).
The results of these analyses support the role of the ICD as primary antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease, and inducible VT/VF at electrophysiologic study.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 09/2001; 12(9):996-1001. · 3.06 Impact Factor
-
M J Domanski,
D P Zipes,
D G Benditt,
A J Camm,
D V Exner,
M D Ezekowitz, H L Greene,
M D Lesh,
J M Miller,
C M Pratt,
S Saksena,
M M Scheinman,
B N Singh,
C M Tracy,
A L Waldo
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article contains the results of an attempt by appointed members of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology to define the research frontier in electrophysiology and suggest areas of study as an aid in setting the research agenda.
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 05/2001; 24(4 Pt 1):526-34. · 1.35 Impact Factor
-
S J Connolly,
A P Hallstrom,
R Cappato,
E B Schron,
K H Kuck,
D P Zipes, H L Greene,
S Boczor,
M Domanski,
D Follmann,
M Gent,
R S Roberts
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Three randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have been reported with what might appear to be different results. The present analysis was performed to obtain the most precise estimate of the efficacy of the ICD, compared to amiodarone, for prolonging survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia.
Individual patient data from the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) study, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) were merged into a master database according to a pre-specified protocol. Proportional hazard modelling of individual patient data was used to estimate hazard ratios and to investigate subgroup interactions. Fixed effect meta-analysis techniques were also used to evaluate treatment effects and to assess heterogeneity across studies. The classic fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the estimates of ICD benefit from the three studies were consistent with each other (P heterogeneity=0.306). It also showed a significant reduction in death from any cause with the ICD; with a summary hazard ratio (ICD:amiodarone) of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.60, 0.87;P=0.0006). For the outcome of arrhythmic death, the hazard ratio was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.37, 0.67;P<0.0001). Survival was extended by a mean of 4.4 months by the ICD over a follow-up period of 6 years. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35% derived significantly more benefit from ICD therapy than those with better preserved left ventricular function. Patients treated before the availability of non-thoracotomy ICD implants derived significantly less benefit from ICD therapy than those treated in the non-thoracotomy era.
Results from the three trials of the ICD vs amiodarone are consistent with each other. There is a 28% reduction in the relative risk of death with the ICD that is due almost entirely to a 50% reduction in arrhythmic death.
European Heart Journal 01/2001; 21(24):2071-8. · 10.48 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The prognosis of patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias varies according to clinical characteristics. We sought to identify predictors of survival in a large population of patients with documented sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias not related to reversible or correctable causes included in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Registry.
We analyzed the impact of 36 demographic, clinical, and discharge treatment variables on the outcome for 3559 patients. Survival status was assessed with the use of the National Death Index. Multivariate analyses were performed with the use of the Cox proportional hazards model. After a mean follow-up of 17 +/- 12 months, 631 patients died. Actuarial survival was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85 to 0.88), 0.79 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.81), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.74) at 1, 2, and 3 years. Multivariate predictors of worse survival included older age, severe left ventricular dysfunction, lower systolic blood pressure, history of congestive heart failure, diabetes, smoking or atrial fibrillation, and preexistent pacemaker. The hemodynamic impact of the qualifying arrhythmia was not a predictor of outcome. Defibrillator implantation and hospital discharge while the patient was taking a beta-blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor were associated with better prognosis.
Despite therapeutic advances, the mortality rates of patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias remain high. Prognosis depends on the severity of underlying heart disease, as reflected by the extent of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of heart failure. Well-tolerated ventricular tachycardia in patients with structural heart disease does not carry a significantly better prognosis than ventricular tachyarrhythmia with more severe hemodynamic consequences.
American Heart Journal 06/2000; 139(5):804-13. · 4.65 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study describes the outcomes of patients from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study Registry to determine how the location of ventricular arrhythmia presentation influences survival.
Most studies of cardiac arrest report outcome following out-of-hospital resuscitation. In contrast, there are minimal data on long-term outcome following in-hospital cardiac arrest.
The AVID Study was a multicenter, randomized comparison of drug and defibrillator strategies to treat life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. A Registry was maintained of all patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias at each study site. The present study includes patients who had AVID-eligible arrhythmias, both randomized and not randomized. Patients with in-hospital and out-of-hospital presentations are compared. Data on long-term mortality were obtained through the National Death Index.
The unadjusted mortality rates at one- and two-year follow-ups were 23% and 31.1% for patients with in-hospital presentations, and 10.5% and 16.8% for those with out-of-hospital presentations (p < 0.001), respectively. The adjusted mortality rates at one- and two-year follow-ups were 14.8% and 20.9% for patients with in-hospital presentations, and 8.4% and 14.1% for those with out-of-hospital presentations (p < 0.001), respectively. The adjusted long-term relative risk for in-hospital versus out-of-hospital presentation was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.9).
Compared with patients with out-of-hospital presentations of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias not due to a reversible cause, patients with in-hospital presentations have a worse long-term prognosis. Because location of ventricular arrhythmia presentation is an independent predictor of long-term outcome, it should be considered as an element of risk stratification and when planning clinical trials.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 11/1999; 34(4):1111-6. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
D V Exner,
J A Reiffel,
A E Epstein,
R Ledingham,
M J Reiter,
Q Yao,
H J Duff,
D Follmann,
E Schron, H L Greene,
M D Carlson,
M A Brodsky,
T Akiyama,
C Baessler,
J L Anderson
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate whether use of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, alone or in combination with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, is associated with improved survival in persons with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT).
The ability of beta-blockers to alter the mortality of patients with VF or VT receiving contemporary medical management is not well defined.
Survival of 1,016 randomized and 2,101 eligible, nonrandomized patients with VF or symptomatic VT followed in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial through December 31, 1996 was assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis.
The 817 (28%) patients discharged from hospital receiving beta-blockers had less ventricular dysfunction, fewer symptoms of heart failure and a different pattern of medication use compared with patients not receiving beta-blockers. Before adjustment for important prognostic variables, beta-blockade was not significantly associated with survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy. After adjustment, beta-blockade remained unrelated to survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with amiodarone alone (n = 1142; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.45; p = 0.85) or a defibrillator alone (n = 1347; adjusted RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; p = 0.58). In contrast, beta-blockade was independently associated with improved survival in eligible, nonrandomized patients who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 412; adjusted RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.88; p = 0.018).
Beta-blocker use was independently associated with improved survival in patients with VF or symptomatic VT who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, but a protective effect was not prominent in patients already receiving amiodarone or a defibrillator.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 09/1999; 34(2):325-33. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
H L Greene
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Whether patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias should be treated first with antiarrhythmic drugs or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not known. Many patients are ultimately treated with both an antiarrhythmic drug and on ICD. Early studies reported that 40-70% of patients who received an ICD were ultimately treated with an antiarrhythmic drug, although fewer patients are now being treated with both modalities. The beneficial interactions between antiarrhythmic drugs and an ICD are slowing of ventricular tachycardia, which yields improved hemodynamic tolerance; improved antitachycardia pacing and low energy cardioversion success; lowering of antiarrhythmic drug doses, which reduces the risk of side effects; limiting the number of arrhythmia episodes, which minimizes patients discomfort and prolongs ICD battery life; and preventing or slowing supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, which reduces the number of inappropriate shocks from the ICD. The disadvantages of combining pharmacologic therapy and the use of an ICD are the cost and side effects of both therapies. Adverse interactions between an ICD and antiarrhythmic drugs include slowed ventricular tachycardia, which may lead to failure to detect the arrhythmia; increased defibrillation and pacing thresholds; worsened hemodynamic tolerance of ventricular tachycardia; lengthened PR, QRS, or QT intervals causing multiple counting; and decreased size of the intracardiac electrogram, leading to failure to detect the ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Caution must be used when combining pharmacologic therapy with an ICD. Repeat electrophysiologic testing is frequently necessary after the initiation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy in a patient with an ICD to ensure successful therapy with the ICD.
The American Journal of Cardiology 09/1996; 78(4A):61-6. · 3.37 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this study we investigated the time to the first arrhythmic, ischemic, or failure event for encainide-flecainide and moricizine versus their respective placebo comparison groups in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. The purpose was to explore possible mechanisms for the excessive deaths associated with active therapy that have been previously reported. Differences were noted between the active drugs. In particular, encainide-flecainide appeared to convert an ischemic event into death in more cases and more promptly than moricizine. However, the excessive deaths noted on encainide-flecainide were as likely to occur subsequent to a failure event as an ischemic event; for both encainide-flecainide and moricizine, the vast majority of excess deaths appeared to be the result of an increase in arrhythmia events without any protective effect of the drug. We were unable to identify any specific mechanism to explain the adverse effect of encainide and flecainide.
American Heart Journal 08/1995; 130(1):71-9. · 4.65 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: All transthoracic defibrillators on the US market use nominally monophasic shock waveforms. However, biphasic waveforms have a lower defibrillation threshold than monophasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation of animals and for defibrillation of humans by implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The relative efficacies of Edmark monophasic and Gurvich biphasic transthoracic cardioversion waveforms (200 J into 50 omega) were compared for transthoracic cardioversion in 171 patients undergoing electrophysiologic study for evaluation of ventricular arrhythmias. Patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to receive either a monophasic or a biphasic waveform for the initial shock for conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular fibrillation [VF] = 53, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia [VT] = 80, polymorphic VT = 30, ventricular flutter = 8). Delivered energies for the Edmark and Gurvich waveforms were 215 +/- 11 and 171 +/- 11 J, respectively. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, use of antiarrhythmic agents, arrhythmia cycle length, or duration of arrhythmia prior to shock for monophasic and biphasic waveform groups. The first shock for all arrhythmias was successful in 75 of 88 patients (85.2%) for the monophasic waveform compared with 81 of 83 patients (97.6%) for the biphasic waveform, p = 0.0054. The first shock for VF was successful in 22 of 28 patients (78.6%) for the monophasic waveform compared with 25 of 25 (100%) for the biphasic waveform, p = 0.0241. The Gurvich biphasic waveforms delivering a mean of 171 J were superior to Edmark monophasic waveforms delivering a mean of 215 J for transthoracic cardioversion of arrhythmias of short duration. This finding may have important implications for the development of future transthoracic defibrillators.
The American Journal of Cardiology 07/1995; 75(16):1135-9. · 3.37 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We studied the relations between heart failure, ejection fraction, arrhythmia suppression and mortality.
Both left ventricular ejection fraction and functional class of heart failure are strongly associated with mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Both are also related to the presence of ventricular arrhythmias and have been identified as factors related to the ability to suppress ventricular arrhythmias. Little has been reported about the relations between these two factors and arrhythmia suppression or mortality.
Baseline data from the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial were used to define several categories of heart failure and to relate both the resulting categories and ejection fraction to arrhythmia suppression and mortality using logistic and survival regression analytic methodologies.
Regardless of the prospective baseline definition of heart failure used, the data consistently showed that heart failure was a more powerful predictor of subsequent congestive heart failure events and arrhythmia suppression and was equally powerful in predicting death. However, each variable provided incremental information when included in the prediction model. Heart failure and ejection fraction appeared to be independent predictors of death. Interactions were observed: A low ejection fraction was more predictive of failure of arrhythmia suppression in patients with than without evidence of heart failure before or at baseline; a low ejection fraction was more predictive of subsequent congestive heart failure events in patients without than with evidence of heart failure before or at baseline.
Although heart failure as a prognostic feature appears to be somewhat superior to ejection fraction, both are powerful predictors of arrhythmia suppression and cardiac events in patients with ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction. Each provides incremental prediction.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 06/1995; 25(6):1250-7. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
H L Greene
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The implantable cardiac defibrillator was first used in 1980 and has gained widespread acceptance. However, no randomized controlled trials have been reported that compare the implantable cardiac defibrillator with antiarrhythmic drugs. Most published studies have used historical control subjects or nonrandomized concurrent patients for comparison with patients who received an implantable defibrillator. To reduce bias, studies are needed that compare therapies randomized between antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable defibrillators. The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study was designed to evaluate the nonthoracotomy, tiered-therapy implantable defibrillator compared with drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol). Patients are eligible for randomization if they have a history of recent cardiac arrest caused by ventricular fibrillation or have hemodynamically serious ventricular tachycardia. A pilot study to enroll 200 patients began on June 1, 1993, before the start of the main study of 1000 patients. Analysis of the main study by intention to treat will assess the primary endpoint of total mortality.
American Heart Journal 05/1994; 127(4 Pt 2):1171-8. · 4.65 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on the timing of arrhythmic death.
Sudden cardiac death remains a problem of epidemic proportions. Delineating its pathophysiology is an important step in devising preventive measures. Previous studies have shown a circadian pattern of onset of sudden cardiac death. The effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on this pattern has not been systematically studied.
The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) was a multicenter double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to determine whether suppression of ventricular ectopic activity by means of antiarrhythmic drugs (encainide, flecainide or moricizine) after acute myocardial infarction would reduce the incidence of arrhythmic death.
The trial was terminated prematurely because of an unexpectedly high mortality rate in the active treatment group. The onset of arrhythmic death in this group (in patients not receiving beta-adrenergic blocking agents) displayed a bimodal variation, with significant peaks in midmorning and late afternoon/early evening. More than half of the symptomatic events were accompanied by anginalike symptoms. Approximately 30% of all events occurred within 2 h of awakening.
Our data suggest the possibility of a complex interaction among antiarrhythmic drugs, sympathetic nervous system activation and acute myocardial ischemia. Planning of future antiarrhythmic drug trials will need to take this information into account.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 03/1994; 23(2):283-9. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom no ventricular arrhythmias can be induced with programmed electrical stimulation.
Survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom ventricular arrhythmias cannot be induced with programmed electrical stimulation remain at risk for recurrence of serious arrhythmias. Optimal protection to prevent sudden death in these patients is uncertain. This study compares survival in the subset of survivors of sudden cardiac death with that of patients treated with or without an ICD.
A retrospective study was performed on 194 consecutive survivors of primary sudden death who had < or = 6 beats of ventricular tachycardia induced with programmed electrical stimulation with at least three extrastimuli. Ninety-nine patients received an ICD and 95 did not.
There were no significant differences between the two groups in presenting rhythm, number of prior myocardial infarctions or use of antiarrhythmic agents. Patients treated with an ICD were younger (55 +/- 16 vs. 59 +/- 11 years, p = 0.03) and had a lesser incidence of coronary artery disease (48% vs. 63%, p = 0.04) and a lower ejection fraction (0.43 +/- 0.16 vs. 0.48 +/- 0.18, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the groups in the use of revascularization procedures or antiarrhythmic agents after the sudden cardiac death. Patients treated with an ICD had an improvement in sudden cardiac death-free survival (p = 0.04) but the overall survival rate did not differ from that of the patients not so treated (p = 0.91). A multivariate regression analysis that adjusted for the observed differences between the groups did not alter these results.
Survivors of sudden cardiac death in whom no arrhythmias could be induced with programmed electrical stimulation remained at risk for arrhythmia recurrence. Although the proportion of deaths attributed to arrhythmias was lower in the patients treated with an ICD, this therapy did not significantly improve overall survival.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 05/1993; 21(5):1186-92. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) was a study designed to test the hypothesis that suppression of ventricular premature complexes after a myocardial infarction would improve survival. Preliminary results showed that suppression of ventricular premature complexes with encainide and flecainide worsened survival, and the CAST continued as the CAST-II with moricizine compared with its placebo. The protocol for the CAST-II was changed to attempt to enroll patients more likely to experience serious arrhythmias. The enrollment time was narrowed to 4 to 90 days after myocardial infarction; the qualifying ejection fraction was lowered to less than or equal to 0.40; a higher dose of moricizine could be used; early titration itself was double-blind with a placebo, and the definition of disqualifying ventricular tachycardia was changed to allow patients with more serious arrhythmias to be entered into the trial. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial-II was subsequently terminated prematurely because 1) patients treated with moricizine had an excessive cardiac mortality rate during the 1st 2 weeks of exposure to the drug, and 2) there appeared to be little chance of showing a long-term survival benefit from treatment with moricizine. This report outlines the rationale behind the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial and the reasons for selection of the drugs used in the CAST and CAST-II.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 05/1992; 19(5):894-8. · 14.16 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Bromochlorodifluoromethane (halon 1211, a fire extinguisher), like other fluorocarbons, has been linked with ventricular arrhythmias and myocardial depression. Ten healthy firefighters, aged 40-50, were exposed to 1,000 ppm halon while exercising, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover experiment, and were monitored during and after exposure. Complex ectopy (ventricular couplets and idioventricular rhythm) occurred in two subjects with halon, but none with placebo. One subject had 49.5 ventricular premature beats (VPB)/hour during the period of halon exposure and subsequent 8 hours and only 8.7 VPB/hour during the same period of placebo. In addition, 8 of the 10 subjects had a smaller systolic blood pressure rise during exercise with halon than with placebo. None of the observed differences was statistically significant. These results are consistent with findings in other investigations, suggesting that occupational fluorocarbon exposures may be cardiotoxic in certain individuals, although the small sample sizes used in this and other studies have resulted in limited statistical power to demonstrate this effect.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 02/1992; 21(2):223-33. · 1.63 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An example from the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) illustrates what we term the 'healthy responder' phenomenon. The hypothesis is that patients who respond to a given treatment are healthier than patients who do not respond. In observational studies this results in an apparent but not real benefit for the treatment. The unique design of CAST, namely, titration before randomization, allows illustration of this phenomenon since we can view the study as both a non-randomized as well as a randomized trial of therapy. We conclude that, in demonstration of a drug effect, randomized trials are essential.
Statistics in Medicine 11/1991; 10(10):1621-31. · 1.88 Impact Factor
