Relative effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with varying degrees of left ventricular dysfunction who have survived malignant ventricular arrhythmias. AVID Investigators. Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators.
(25/1845)
OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the effect of baseline ejection fraction on survival difference between patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias who were treated with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). BACKGROUND: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study demonstrated improved survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or =0.40 or hemodynamic compromise. METHODS: Survival differences between AAD-treated and ICD-treated patients entered into the AVID study (patients presenting with sustained ventricular arrhythmia associated with an LVEF < or =0.40 or hemodynamic compromise) were compared at different levels of ejection fraction. RESULTS: In patients with an LVEF > or =0.35, there was no difference in survival between AAD-treated and ICD-treated patients. A test for interaction was not significant, but had low power to detect an interaction. For patients with an LVEF 0.20 to 0.34, there was a significantly improved survival with ICD as compared with AAD therapy. In the smaller subgroup with an LVEF <0.20, the same magnitude of survival difference was seen as that in the 0.20 to 0.34 LVEF subgroup, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that patients with relatively well-preserved LVEF (> or =0.35) may not have better survival when treated with the ICD as compared with AADs. At a lower LVEF, the ICD appears to offer improved survival as compared with AADs. Prospective studies with larger patient numbers are needed to assess the effect of relatively well-preserved ejection fraction (> or =0.35) on the relative treatment effect of AADs and the ICDs. (+info)
In-hospital versus out-of-hospital presentation of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias predicts survival: results from the AVID Registry. Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators.
(26/1845)
OBJECTIVES: 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. BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. (+info)
Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in patients with an ICD. Unlimited potential or replete with complexity and problems?
(27/1845)
A report from a Study group, proposed by A. J. Camm, London, of the Working Groups on Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology; co-sponsored by the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. The Study Group was convened on 29 August 1997 at Saltsjobaden, near Stockholm. The meeting was chaired by A. J. Camm, London, and C. M. Pratt, Houston. Based on the presentation and discussions, a first draft of the documents was prepared by C. Pratt and J. Camm which was then circulated to all members three times for their review. All members of the Study Group approved the final manuscript. This report represents the opinion of the members of this Study Group and does not necessarily reflect the official position of either society.The meeting of the Study Group was made possible by unrestricted educational grants from Medtronic, Guidant, Proctor & Gamble, Berlex and Sanofi.Also, presented, in part, at the Cardio-Renal Drugs Advisory Board meeting of the Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Maryland, on 30 April 1999. (+info)
Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial.
(28/1845)
OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed the causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. BACKGROUND: Both implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are used as mainstays of treatment for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in patients who have survived either ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia with hemodynamic compromise and serious symptoms. The AVID Trial compared the effectiveness of these two therapies. Survival was better with the ICD. Assessment of the cause of death should help to determine the mechanism of improvement in survival with the ICD. METHODS: Of 1,016 patients enrolled in the AVID Trial, 202 patients died. The mode of death was determined by the unblinded Principal Investigator and independently by an Events Committee, which reviewed materials meticulously blinded with respect to treatment. Deaths were classified as cardiac or noncardiac. Cardiac deaths were further classified as arrhythmic or nonarrhythmic, and causes of noncardiac death were identified. RESULTS: Deaths were more frequent in patients treated with an AAD (n = 122), compared with patients treated with the ICD (n = 80), unadjusted p < 0.001, p = 0.012 adjusted for sequential monitoring. In AVID, 157 deaths were cardiac, and 79 were arrhythmic. The major effect of the ICD was to prevent arrhythmic death (AAD = 55, ICD = 24, nominal unadjusted p < 0.001). Nonarrhythmic cardiac deaths were equal (AAD = 39, ICD = 39). Patients treated with an AAD had a slightly greater incidence of noncardiac deaths (28 vs. 17, p = 0.053), primarily due to pulmonary and renal causes. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD is more effective than an AAD in reducing arrhythmic cardiac death, while nonarrhythmic cardiac death is unchanged. Of note, apparent arrhythmic death still seems to constitute 38% of all cardiac deaths despite treatment with an ICD. However, the ICD remains superior to an AAD in prolonging survival after life-threatening arrhythmias. (+info)
Circadian variation of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease after cardioverter defibrillator implantation. European 7219 Jewel Investigators.
(29/1845)
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the circadian variation of ventricular arrhythmias detected by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with and without ischemic heart disease. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown a circadian variation of ventricular arrhythmias, sudden death and myocardial infarction with a peak occurrence in the morning hours. The circadian pattern, which is similar for both arrhythmic and ischemic events, suggests that ischemia may play a critical role in the genesis of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death. We hypothesized that, if ischemia plays an important role in the triggering of ventricular arrhythmias, the circadian pattern should be different in patients with ischemic heart disease compared with patients with nonischemic heart disease. METHODS: The circadian variation of ventricular arrhythmias recorded by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator was studied in 310 patients during a mean follow-up of 181 +/- 163 days. Two hundred four patients had a history of ischemic heart disease and 106 patients had nonischemic heart disease. The times of the episodes of ventricular arrhythmias were retrieved from the data log of each device during follow-up, and the circadian pattern was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: During follow-up, 1,061 episodes of ventricular arrhythmias were recorded by the device in the 310 patients. Six hundred eighty-two episodes occurred in the group of patients with ischemic heart disease and 379 occurred in the nonischemic heart disease group. The circadian variation of the episodes showed a typical pattern with a morning and afternoon peak in both groups of patients with ischemic and nonischemic heart disease, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The circadian rhythm of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ischemic heart disease is similar to patients with nonischemic heart disease, suggesting that the trigger mechanisms of the initiation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias may be similar, irrespective of the underlying heart disease. (+info)
The Food and Drug Administration and atrial defibrillation devices.
(30/1845)
CONTEXT: Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia. It leads to significant morbidity and mortality, primarily from the increased incidence of stroke. The implantable atrial defibrillator, a new therapeutic option for the management of atrial fibrillation, is currently undergoing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scrutiny for approval to market in the United States. DATA SOURCES: A review of the basic epidemiology of atrial fibrillation, as well as the current status of accepted treatment options in light of the development of the implantable atrial defibrillator, was conducted. A literature search using the terms atrial fibrillation, implantable defibrillator, Food and Drug Administration, medical devices, and medical device regulatory law was conducted using the MEDLINE and Current Contents databases. RESULTS: Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment of atrial fibrillation. Despite the lack of definitive studies showing overall benefit associated with maintaining sinus rhythm in patients in atrial fibrillation, the implantable atrial defibrillator may soon reach the general market. We examine the FDA process for the evaluation of this new medical device and discuss implications for the patient, physician, industry, and health insurers. CONCLUSIONS: Current FDA approval processes for new devices are a compromise between (a) the needs for expediency and encouraging innovation by the medical device industry and (b) the need to ensure that new devices will contribute to improved patient outcomes. We suggest alternative FDA-approval processes that address these issues. (+info)
Surgical management of the patient with an implanted cardiac device: implications of electromagnetic interference.
(31/1845)
OBJECTIVE: To identify the sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI) that may alter the performance of implanted cardiac devices and develop strategies to minimize their effects on patient hemodynamic status. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Since the development of the sensing demand pacemaker, EMI in the clinical setting has concerned physicians treating patients with such devices. Implanted cardiovertor defibrillators (ICDs) and ventricular assist devices (VADs) can also be affected by EMI. METHODS: All known sources of interference to pacemakers, ICDs, and VADs were evaluated and preventative strategies were devised. RESULTS: All devices should be thoroughly evaluated before and after surgery to make sure that its function has not been permanently damaged or changed. If electrocautery is to be used, pacemakers should be placed in a triggered or asynchronous mode; ICDs should have arrhythmia detection suspended before surgery. If defibrillation is to be used, the current flow between the paddles should be kept as far away from and perpendicular to the lead system as possible. Both pacemakers and ICDs should be properly shielded if magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, or radiation therapy is to be used. The effect of EMI on VADs depends on the model. Magnetic resonance imaging adversely affects all VADs except the Abiomed VAD, and therefore its use should be avoided in this population of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The patient with an implanted cardiac device can safely undergo surgery as long as certain precautions are taken. (+info)
Virtual electrode-induced reexcitation: A mechanism of defibrillation.
(32/1845)
Mechanisms of defibrillation remain poorly understood. Defibrillation success depends on the elimination of fibrillation without shock-induced arrhythmogenesis. We optically mapped selected epicardial regions of rabbit hearts (n=20) during shocks applied with the use of implantable defibrillator electrodes during the refractory period. Monophasic shocks resulted in virtual electrode polarization (VEP). Positive values of VEP resulted in a prolongation of the action potential duration, whereas negative polarization shortened the action potential duration, resulting in partial or complete recovery of the excitability. After a shock, new propagated wavefronts emerged at the boundary between the 2 regions and reexcited negatively polarized regions. Conduction velocity and maximum action potential upstroke rate of rise dV/dt (max) of shock-induced activation depended on the transmembrane potential at the end of the shock. Linear regression analysis showed that dV/dt(max) of postshock activation reached 50% of that of normal action potential at a V(m) value of -56.7+/-0.6 mV postshock voltage (n=9257). Less negative potentials resulted in slow conduction and blocks, whereas more negative potentials resulted in faster conduction. Although wavebreaks were produced in either condition, they degenerated into arrhythmias only when conduction was slow. Shock-induced VEP is essential in extinguishing fibrillation but can reinduce arrhythmias by producing excitable gaps. Reexcitation of these gaps through progressive increase in shock strength may provide the basis for the lower and upper limits of vulnerability. The former may correspond to the origination of slow wavefronts of reexcitation and phase singularities. The latter corresponds to fast conduction during which wavebreaks no longer produce sustained arrhythmias. (+info)