Ventricular tachycardia landmark trials

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. ‘’AVID (The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: ICD vs medication either amiodarone or sotalol

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: Total: 1016 ICD: 507 Medications (predominantly amiodarone): 509 (80% with ischemic heart disease)

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 32 (inclusion<40)

1. 1. ’’Result’’: Relative risk reduction: 1-year: 39% ; 2-year: 27% ; 3-year: 31% (p = 0.02)

1. ’’CIDS (Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: ICD vs amiodarone

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: Total: 659 ICD: 328 Amiodarone: 331 (82% with ischemic heart disease)

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: <35

1. 1. ’’Result’’: Relative risk reduction: 20% (p = 0.142)

1. ‘’CASH (Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: ICD vs amiodarone vs beta blocker

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: Total: 288 (74% with ischemic heart disease) ICD: 99 Amiodarone: 92 Metoprolol: 97

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 45

1. 1. ’’Result’’: Relative risk reduction at 5 years: 23% (p = 0.081)

Trials of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with implantable cardiac defibrillators.

1. ‘’MADIT I (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: Conventional medical therapy vs ICD in patients with clinical NSVT and inducible VT during EPS that is not suppressible with procainamide

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: Medical therapy: 101 ICD arm: 95

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 35

1. 1. ’’Result’’: RR reduction in mortality in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.26-0.82; p = 0.009

1. ‘’CABG-PATCH (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: CAD patients undergoing CABG with abnormal signal averaged ECG randomized to ICD or control group

1. 1. ’’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

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 30

1. 1. ’’Result’’: 31% RR reduction in favor of ICD; 95% CI: 0.51-0.93; p = 0.16

1. ‘’AMIOVIRT (Amiodarone versus Implantable Defibrillator)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: Nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients with nonsustained

VT, randomized to ICD vs amiodarone

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: ICD: 51 Amiodarone: 52 Total: 103

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 35

1. 1. ’’Result’’: No significant difference in survival

1. ‘’DEFINITE (Defibrillators in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: Nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy patients with nonsustained VT, randomized to ICD vs standard medical therapy

1. 1. ’’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

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 35

1. 1. ’’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)

1. ’’DINAMIT (Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: Benefit of an ICD early after an MI within 6-40 days towards reduction of mortality when compared with medical therapy

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: ICD: 332 Control: 342 Total: 674

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 35

1. 1. ’’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

1. ’’SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial)’’

1. 1. ’’Strategy’’: To assess prognostic effect of ICD vs amiodarone vs placebo in class II and III heart failure regardless of etiology.

1. 1. ’’Demographics’’: Conventional therapy and placebo: 847 Conventional therapy and amiodarone: 845 Conventional therapy and single lead, shock only ICD: 829 Total: 2521

1. 1. ’’Mean EF’’: 35 (ischemic etiology patients 52% and nonischemic etiology 48%)

1. 1. ’’Result’’: Amiodarone and placebo outcome were comparable. ICD arm absolute risk reduction: 7.2% after 5 years; RR: 23% (p = 0.007)

References

Template:WikiDoc Sources