Design and results of the antiarrhythmics vs implantable defibrillators (AVID) registry. The AVID Investigators

BACKGROUND: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study compared treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators versus antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). AVID maintained a Registry on all patients, randomized or not, with any VA or unexplained syncope who could be considered for either of the treatment strategies. Trial-eligible arrhythmias were the categories of VF cardiac arrest, Syncopal VT, and Symptomatic VT, below. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 5989 patients screened, 4595 were registered and 1016 were randomized. Mortality follow-up through 1996 was obtained on the 4219 Registry patients enrolled before 1997 through the National Death Index. Crude mortality rates (mean+/-SD, follow-up, 16.9+/-11.5 months) were: VF cardiac arrest, 17.0% (n=1399, 238 deaths); Syncopal VT, 21.2% (n=598, 127 deaths); Symptomatic VT, 15.8% (n=1065, 168 deaths); Stable (asymptomatic) VT, 19.7% (n=497, 98 deaths); VT/VF with transient/correctable cause, 17.8% (n=270, 48 deaths); and Unexplained syncope, 12.3% (n=390, 48 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with seemingly lower-risk or unknown-risk VAs (asymptomatic VT, and VT/VF associated with a transient factor) have a (high) mortality similar to that of higher-risk, AVID-eligible VAs. The similar (and poor) prognosis of most patients with VT/VF suggests the need for reevaluation of a priori risk grouping and raises the question of the appropriate arrhythmia therapy for a broad range of patients.     

Predictive value of ventricular arrhythmia inducibility for subsequent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II patients.

In the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Both inducible and noninducible patients received an ICD. We correlated inducibility with the occurrence of subsequent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Intracardiac ICD electrograms for subsequent events were analyzed to categorize the spontaneous arrhythmia as VT or VF. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT in inducible patients was 29.0% versus 19.3% in noninducible patients. However, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common at two years in inducible patients (3.2%) than in noninducible patients (8.6%). In the MADIT II study, inducibility predicted an increased likelihood of VT but decreased VF. OBJECTIVES: We correlated electrophysiologic inducibility with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II. BACKGROUND: In the MADIT II study, 593 (82%) of 720 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Patients received an ICD whether they were inducible or not. METHODS: A "standard" inducibility definition included sustained monomorphic or polymorphic VT induced with three or fewer extrastimuli or VF induced with two or fewer extrastimuli. We compared a narrow inducibility definition (only monomorphic VT) and a broad definition (standard definition plus VF with three extrastimuli). We used ICD-stored electrograms to categorize spontaneous VT or VF. RESULTS: Inducible patients (standard definition) had a greater likelihood of experiencing ICD therapy for VT than noninducible patients (p = 0.023). Unexpectedly, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common (p = 0.021) in inducible patients than in noninducible patients. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT or VF was 29.4% for inducible patients and 25.5% for noninducible patients. Standard inducibility did not predict the combined end point of VT or VF (p = 0.280, by log-rank analysis). The narrow inducibility definition outperformed the standard definition, whereas the broad definition appeared inferior to the standard definition. CONCLUSIONS: In the MADIT II study patients, inducibility was associated with an increased likelihood of VT. Noninducible MADIT II study subjects using this electrophysiologic protocol had a considerable VT event rate and a higher VF event rate than inducible patients. Induction of polymorphic VT or VF, even with double extrastimuli, appears less relevant than induction of monomorphic VT.     

Significance of inducible ventricular fibrillation in patients with coronary artery disease and unexplained syncope

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the incidence and prognostic significance of inducible ventricular fibrillation (VF) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and unexplained syncope. BACKGROUND: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines recommend implantation of internal cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with unexplained syncope in whom either ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF is inducible during electrophysiologic (EP) testing. Although the prognostic significance of inducible monomorphic VT is known, the significance of inducible VF remains undefined. METHODS: We evaluated 118 consecutive patients with CAD and unexplained syncope who underwent EP testing. Sustained monomorphic VT was inducible in 53 (45%) patients; in 20 (17%) patients, VF was the only inducible arrhythmia; and no sustained ventricular arrhythmia was inducible in the remaining 45 (38%) patients. The latter two groups of 65 (55%) patients make up the study population. RESULTS: There were 16 deaths among the study population during a follow-up period of 25.3 +/- 19.6 months. The overall one- and two-year survival in these patients was 89% and 81%, respectively. No significant difference in survival was observed between patients with and without inducible VF (80% power to detect a fourfold survival difference). CONCLUSIONS: In 17% of patients with CAD and unexplained syncope, VF is the only inducible ventricular arrhythmia. Within the limits of this pilot study, long-term follow-up of patients with and without inducible VF demonstrates no difference in survival between the two groups. Therefore, the practice of ICD implantation in patients with CAD, unexplained syncope and inducible VF, especially with triple ventricular extrastimuli, may merit reconsideration.     

Comparison of event rates and survival in patients with unexplained syncope without documented ventricular tachyarrhythmias versus patients with documented sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias both treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Patients with unexplained syncope and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias during electrophysiologic testing have an increased cardiac mortality rate. We compared event rates and survival of 178 patients with unexplained syncope and no documented ventricular arrhythmias (syncope group) versus 568 patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT or fibrillation (VF) (VT/VF group) treated, as part of a lead (Ventritex TVL) investigation, with similar implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) capable of extensive data storage. The 2 groups shared similar clinical characteristics. The mean follow-up was 11 months for the syncope group and 14 months for the VT/VF group. The mean time from device implantation to first appropriate therapy was similar in the 2 groups (109 +/- 140 vs 93 +/- 131 days, p = 0.40). Actuarial probability of appropriate ICD therapy was 49% and 55% at 1 and 2 years, respectively, in syncope group and 49% and 58% in VT/VF group (p = 0.57). Recurrent syncope was associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 85% and 92% of the syncope group and VT/VF group, respectively (p = 0.54). At 2 years, actuarial survival was 91% in the syncope group and 93% in VT/VF group (p = 0.85). We conclude that patients treated with ICD with unexplained syncope and induced VT/VF have an equally high incidence of appropriate ICD therapy and low mortality compared with similar patients with documented VT/VF. These findings, plus the high association between recurrent syncope and ventricular arrhythmias, indicate that VT/VF are likely etiologies in selected patients with unexplained syncope and support ICD therapy in such cases.     

Hydroquinidine therapy in Brugada syndrome

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess hydroquinidine (HQ) efficacy in selected patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS). BACKGROUND: Management of asymptomatic patients with BrS and inducible arrhythmias remains a key issue. Effectiveness of class Ia antiarrhythmic drugs, which inhibit the potassium transient outward current of the action potential, has been suggested in BrS. METHODS: From a cohort of 106 BrS patients, we studied 35 who received HQ (32 men; mean age 48 +/- 11 years). Patients had asymptomatic BrS and inducible arrhythmia (n = 31) or multiple appropriate shocks from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (n = 4). Asymptomatic patients with inducible arrhythmia underwent electrophysiologic (EP)-guided therapy. When ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) inducibility was not prevented, or in case of HQ intolerance, an ICD was placed. RESULTS: Hydroquinidine prevented VT/VF inducibility in 76% of asymptomatic patients who underwent EP-guided therapy. Syncope occurred in two of the 21 patients who received long-term (17 +/- 13 months) HQ therapy (1 syncope associated with QT interval prolongation and 1 unexplained syncope associated with probable noncompliance). In asymptomatic patients who received an ICD (n = 10), one appropriate shock occurred during a follow-up period of 13 +/- 8 months. In patients with multiple ICD shocks, HQ prevented VT/VF recurrence in all cases during a mean follow-up of 14 +/- 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroquinidine therapy prevented VT/VF inducibility in 76% of asymptomatic patients with BrS and inducible arrhythmia, as well as VT/VF recurrence in all BrS patients with multiple ICD shocks. These preliminary data suggest that preventive treatment by HQ may be an alternative strategy to ICD placement in asymptomatic patients with BrS and inducible arrhythmia.     

Comparison of arrhythmia recurrence in patients presenting with ventricular fibrillation versus ventricular tachycardia in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial

Because many episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) are believed to be triggered by ventricular tachycardia (VT), patients who present with VT or VF are usually grouped together in discussions of natural history and treatment. However, there are significant differences in the clinical profiles of these 2 patient groups, and some studies have suggested differences in their response to therapy. We examined arrhythmias occurring spontaneously in 449 patients assigned to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial to determine whether patients who receive an ICD after VT have arrhythmias during follow-up that are different from patients who present with VF. ICD printouts were analyzed both by a committee blinded to the patients' original presenting arrhythmia and by the local investigator. During 31 +/- 14 months of follow-up, 2,673 therapies were reported. Patients who were enrolled in the AVID trial after an episode of VT were more likely to have an episode of VT (73.5% vs 30.1%, p <0.001), and were less likely to have an episode of VF (18.3% vs 28.0%, p = 0.013) than patients enrolled after an episode of VF. Adjustment for differences in ejection fraction, previous infarction, and beta-blocker and antiarrhythmic therapy did not appreciably change the results. Ventricular arrhythmia recurrence during follow-up is different in patients who originally present with VT than in those who originally present with VF. These findings suggest there are important differences in the electrophysiologic characteristics of these 2 patient populations.     

Clinical and electrophysiologic predictors of ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

INTRODUCTION: Not all patients experience recurrent sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We evaluated the clinical and electrophysiologic predictors of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) recurrence following ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients (n = 133) underwent 4 +/- 3 serial electrophysiologic studies (EPS) over 50 +/- 26 months following ICD implantation. Sustained VT/VF could always be induced during follow-up EPS in 49 patients; sustained VT/VF was sometimes induced during follow-up EPS in 47 patients; and sustained VT/VF could never be induced during follow-up EPS in 37 patients. Spontaneous VT/VF requiring ICD therapy occurred in 107 patients during follow-up. Patients with sustained VT/VF that was always inducible or sometimes inducible during follow-up experienced more frequent episodes of VT/VF following ICD implant (20.5, 95% CI 12.7-33.0; and 17.8, 95% CI 11.3-28.1 episodes/patient respectively; vs 3.0, 95% CI 2.0-4.6 episodes/patient for patients with VT/VF never induced, P < 0.001). Inducibility of sustained VT/VF post-ICD implant (P < 0.001) and sustained VT as the presenting arrhythmia (P = 0.02) were independent predictors of spontaneous VT/VF recurrence. CONCLUSION: Reproducibly inducible VT/VF following ICD implantation predicts a high probability of VT/VF recurrence and identifies a cohort of patients who experience frequent episodes of VT/VF over time. Persistent noninducibility of sustained VT/VF identifies a group of patients who experience no or very few episodes of VT/VF recurrence.     

Suppression of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias: a comparison of d,l-sotalol with no antiarrhythmic drug treatment

Objectives. This study evaluates the clinical efficacy of d,l-sotalol in patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias.Background. D,l-sotalol is an important antiarrhythmic agent to prevent recurrences of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VT/VF). However, evidence is lacking that an antiarrhythmic agent like d,l-sotalol can reduce the incidence of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in comparison to no antiarrhythmic drug treatment.Methods. A prospective study was performed in 146 consecutive patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. In 53 patients, oral d,l-sotalol prevented induction of VT/VF during electrophysiological testing and patients were discharged on oral d,l-sotalol (sotalol group). In 93 patients, VT/VF remained inducible and a defibrillator (ICD) was implanted. After implantation of the device patients were randomly assigned to oral treatment with d,l-sotalol (ICD/sotalol group, n = 46) or no antiarrhythmic medication (n = 47, ICD-only group).Results. During follow-up, 25 patients (53.2%) in the ICD-only group had a VT/VF recurrence in comparison to 15 patients (28.3%) in the sotalol group and 15 patients (32.6%) in the ICD/sotalol group (p = 0.0013). Therapy with d,l-sotalol, amiodarone or metoprolol was instituted in 12 patients (25.5%) of the ICD-only group due to frequent VT/VF recurrences or symptomatic supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. In nine patients, 17% of the sotalol group, an ICD was implanted after VT/VF recurrence, three patients (5.7%) received amiodarone. Total mortality was not different between the three groups.Conclusions. D,l-sotalol significantly reduces the incidence of recurrences of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in comparison to no antiarrhythmic drug treatment.     

Are lipid-lowering drugs also antiarrhythmic drugs? An analysis of the Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the antiarrhythmic effects of lipid-lowering drug therapy as assessed by ventricular tachyarrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia [VT]/ventricular fibrillation [VF]) recurrences recorded by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease (ASHD). BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of lipid-lowering drugs suggest reduction of sudden death (SD) in patients with ASHD. Because SD is usually secondary to VT/VF, this observation suggests that lipid-lowering therapy has antiarrhythmic effects. METHODS: The probability of VT/VF recurrence in patients with ASHD treated with an ICD in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial who did not receive lipid-lowering drug therapy (n = 279) was compared with that in patients who received early and consistent lipid-lowering therapy (n = 83). In addition, all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality of all patients in the AVID trial with ASHD who did not receive lipid-lowering therapy (n = 564) were compared with that of those who received early and consistent lipid-lowering therapy (n = 149). RESULTS: Using multivariate analyses, lipid-lowering therapy was associated with a reduction in the relative hazard for VT/VF recurrence of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15 to 0.58) (adjusted p = 0.003) in the ICD subgroup. Lipid-lowering therapy was also associated with a reduction in the relative hazard for all-cause mortality of 0.36 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.68) (adjusted p = 0.03) and a reduction in the relative hazard for cardiac mortality of 0.39 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.78) (adjusted p = 0.04) in the larger study population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASHD who have received an ICD, lipid-lowering therapy is associated with reduction in the probability of VT/VF recurrence, suggesting that part of the benefit of lipid-lowering therapy may be due to an antiarrhythmic effect.     

Correlation between the signal-averaged electrocardiogram and electrophysiologic study findings in patients with coronary artery disease and sustained ventricular tachycardia

Ventricular late potentials at the end of the surface QRS, detected on the signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) have been shown to be markers for spontaneous and/or inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We examined the correlations between electrophysiologic study (EPS) findings and SAECG indexes in 50 patients with chronic CAD with documented spontaneous VT/ventricular fibrillation (VF), who had either syncope (24 patients) or aborted sudden cardiac death (SCD). The prevalence of late potentials was significantly higher in the syncope patients (75%) compared with the SCD group (46%) (p less than 0.05). No correlation was found between the ventricular refractoriness and the SAECG indexes. There was a significant difference in quantitative SAECG indexes comparing the induction mode of the sustained VT/VF by single and double versus triple extrastimuli; the types of the induced VT (sustained monomorphic, sustained pleomorphic or VF, noninducible); and the cycle length of the induced sustained monomorphic VT with the high frequency QRS duration (QRSD). In conclusion, differences in prevalence and characteristics of ventricular late potentials were found between patients with syncope and with SCD. The degree of abnormality of SAECG indexes correlated with the type and the mode of induction of sustained VT. The magnitude of QRSD of the SAECG correlated with the cycle length of monomorphic VT. The above findings suggest that in patients with CAD and sustained VT/VF the SAECG variables are related to the area of reentry.     

Syncope following cardioverter defibrillator implantation in patients with spontaneous syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia.

AIMS: We sought to determine the incidence, mechanisms, and time to syncope recurrence in patients with spontaneous syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (SyMVT) treated with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Incidence and causes of syncope following ICD implantation in consecutive patients (n=26) with spontaneous SyMVT were compared with those found in consecutive patients (n=50) with spontaneous non-syncopal monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (NSyMVT). Patients with SyMVT had a higher incidence of syncope (46% patients) than those with NSyMVT (2% patients) at 31+/-21 and 34+/-23 months follow-up, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.42; P=0.0001). Among the former, four patients (15%) had non-arrhythmic syncope and eight patients had arrhythmic syncope (31%), which was associated with either ICD proarrhythmia (seven episodes of VT acceleration or VF degeneration by ATP or low/high-energy shocks in three patients) or spontaneous VT and VF (five episodes in five patients). Median time to the first arrhythmic syncope was 376 days. Arrhythmic syncope presented after a first non-syncopal VT recurrence in six patients (75%). CONCLUSION: Syncope following ICD implantation is common in patients with SyMVT in contrast to patients with NSyMVT. Late syncope presentation supports reassessment of driving restrictions in this setting.     

Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

INTRODUCTION: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is commonly used to treat patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Arrhythmia recurrence rates in these patients are high, but which patients will receive a therapy and the forms of arrhythmia recurrence (VT or VF) are poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The therapy delivered by the ICD was examined in 449 patients randomized to ICD therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. Events triggering ICD shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) were reviewed for arrhythmia diagnosis, clinical symptoms, activity at the onset of the arrhythmia, and appropriateness and results of therapy. Both shock and ATP therapies were frequent by 2 years, with 68% of patients receiving some therapy or having an arrhythmic death. An appropriate shock was delivered in 53% of patients, and ATP was delivered in 68% of patients who had ATP activated. The first arrhythmia treated in follow-up was diagnosed as VT (63%), VF (13%), supraventricular tachycardia (18%), unknown arrhythmia (3%), or due to ICD malfunction or inappropriate sensing (3%). Acceleration of an arrhythmia by the ICD occurred in 8% of patients who received any therapy. No physical activity consistently preceded arrhythmias, nor did any single clinical factor predict the symptoms of the arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: Delivery of ICD therapy in AVID patients was common, primarily due to VT. Inappropriate ICD therapy occurred frequently. Use of ICD therapy as a surrogate endpoint for death in clinical trials should be avoided.     

Implantable defibrillator event rates in patients with unexplained syncope and inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias: a comparison with patients known to have sustained ventricular tachycardia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical significance of inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias among patients with unexplained syncope.

BACKGROUND

Induction of sustained ventricular arrhythmias at electrophysiology study in patients with unexplained syncope and structural heart disease is usually assigned diagnostic significance. However, the true frequency of subsequent spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the absence of antiarrhythmic medications is unknown.

METHODS

In a retrospective case-control study, the incidence of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) therapies for sustained ventricular arrhythmias among patients with unexplained syncope or near syncope (syncope group, n = 22) was compared with that of a control group of patients (n = 32) with clinically documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Sustained ventricular arrhythmias were inducible in both groups and neither group received antiarrhythmic medications. All ICDs had stored electrograms or RR intervals. Clinical variables were similar between groups except that congestive cardiac failure was more common in the syncope group.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier analysis of the time to first appropriate ICD therapy for syncope and control groups produced overlapping curves (p = 0.9), with 57 ± 11% and 50 ± 9%, respectively, receiving ICD therapy by one year. In both groups, the induced arrhythmia was significantly faster than spontaneous arrhythmias, but the cycle lengths of induced and spontaneous arrhythmias were positively correlated (R = 0.6, p < 0.0001). During follow-up, three cardiac transplantations and seven deaths occurred in the syncope group, and two transplantations and five deaths occurred in the control group (36-month survival without transplant 52 ± 11% and 83 ± 7%, respectively, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease and inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias, spontaneous sustained ventricular arrhythmias occur commonly and at a similar rate to patients with documented sustained VT. Thus, electrophysiologic testing in unexplained syncope can identify those at risk of potentially life-threatening tachyarrhythmias, and aggressive treatment of these patients is warranted.     

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator discharge rates in patients with unexplained syncope, structural heart disease, and inducible ventricular tachycardia at electrophysiologic study

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the best available strategy to protect patients from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Although unproven, it is commonly utilized to treat subjects with syncope, a negative clinical workup, structural heart disease, and inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) on programmed electrophysiologic stimulation (EPS). The purpose of this paper was to validate this approach. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 36 subjects who received primary ICD therapy for syncope in the setting of structural heart disease with inducible sustained monomorphic VT on EPS. The cohort was predominantly male (32/36) with underlying coronary artery disease (29/36). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31 +/- 12%, and a third of the patients (12/36) had undergone bypass surgery. RESULTS: The study group was followed for a mean of 23 +/- 15 months (range 3-81 months) and experienced an ICD event rate of 22% at 3 months, which increased to 55% at 36 months. This event rate was comparable with the 66% event rate seen in a group of patients with primary ICD therapy for spontaneous life-threatening VT treated during the same time period. No future predictors of ICD events in the study group could be identified. CONCLUSION: Syncope patients with negative workup, structural heart disease, and sustained monomorphic VT at EPS are at high risk for future tachyarrhythmic events. Based on present evidence, primary ICD therapy in this group appears warranted and justified.     

Long-term clinical outcome of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation treated with amiodarone

The determinants of long-term clinical outcome were studied in 42 patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) who were treated with amiodarone as the sole antiarrhythmic agent. Of the 42 patients, 11 (26%) either died suddenly or had recurrent, symptomatic, sustained VT during a mean follow-up period of 10 months (range 0.3 to 45). Of the 19 patients without inducible VT/VF during electrophysiologic study while receiving amiodarone, 1 patient died suddenly but no patient had recurrent VT/VF. Ten of the 23 patients (43%) with persistently inducible arrhythmia have died suddenly or have had recurrent VT/VF. Using survival and stepwise logistic regression analyses, 2 significant independent predictors of recurrent arrhythmia were identified; persistently inducible VT during electrophysiologic testing in patients receiving amiodarone therapy (p < 0.002) and the left ventricular ejection fraction at rest (p < 0.05). The predictive accuracy of the response to serial electrophysiologic testing during amiodarone therapy was 67%, the sensitivity was 58% and the specificity was 91%. Thus, serial electrophysiologic testing is useful for determining the prognosis in patients with inducible VT/VF treated with amiodarone.     

Electrophysiologic effects of bepridil in patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia assessed by programmed electrical stimulation

The effect of intravenous bepridil, a new calcium antagonist with class I and III properties, was tested in 21 patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias refractory to a mean of five antiarrhythmic agents as assessed by programmed right ventricular stimulation. At control electrophysiologic study without antiarrhythmic agents, sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) was initiated in 20 patients and ventricular fibrillation (VF) was initiated in one patient. After 3 mg/kg of bepridil was administered, VT was still inducible in 19 patients (3 patients had self-terminating VT); the other 2 patients had no inducible VT after bepridil. Bepridil prolonged significantly the QTc interval, the effective refractory period, and the cycle length of induced ventricular tachycardia. Two patients with no inducible VT after intravenous bepridil were placed on oral bepridil (300 mg/day). One patient died suddenly and one patient died of progressive heart failure. The results seem to indicate that the efficacy of bepridil in patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia is limited.     

Ventricular tachycardia in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy: clinical presentation, risk stratification and results of long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND: Not all patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) are at risk for sudden cardiac death. The aim of the study was to evaluate the risk stratification in patients with ARVD/C. METHODS AND RESULTS: Programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) was performed in 34 ARVD/C patients. Twenty-two, 7 and 4 patients had documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (smVT), non-smVT and ventricular fibrillation, respectively. One patient experienced syncope only. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was implanted in 11 patients inducible in smVT with hemodynamic compromise, in 4 patients with documented ventricular fibrillation and in one patient with non-smVT (194 ms tachycardia cycle length) (ICD group, n = 16). Ten patients were left without any antiarrhythmic therapy, 5 patients received antiarrhythmic drugs and 3 patients underwent successful VT ablation (non-ICD group, n = 18). Thirteen patients had an abnormal signal averaged ECG. During 6.5 +/- 2.4 years 69% of ICD patients received appropriate discharges and one non-ICD patient had a hemodynamically tolerated smVT recurrence (no sudden cardiac death in both groups). Comparison between the cycle lengths of clinical VT, induced VT and follow-up VT revealed a strong relationship (R = 0.62-0.88). On multivariate analysis abnormal signal averaged ECG and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction were statistically significant predictors for VT recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In ARVD/C the tachycardia cycle length of clinical VT, PVS-induced VT and follow-up VT correlate well implicating that a PVS-guided approach does not provide additional information. Spontaneous arrhythmia in combination with clinical presentation allows identification of patients in need for an ICD.     

Electrical storm presages nonsudden death: the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID) trial

BACKGROUND: Electrical storm, multiple temporally related episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), is a frequent problem among recipients of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, insufficient data exist regarding its prognostic significance. METHODS AND RESULTS: This analysis includes 457 patients who received an ICD in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial and who were followed for 31 +/- 13 months. Electrical storm was defined as > or = 3 separate episodes of VT/VF within 24 hours. Characteristics and survival of patients surviving electrical storm (n = 90), those with VT/VF unrelated to electrical storm (n = 184), and the remaining patients (n = 183) were compared. The 3 groups differed in terms of ejection fraction, index arrhythmia, revascularization status, and baseline medication use. Survival was evaluated using time-dependent Cox modeling. Electrical storm occurred 9.2 +/- 11.5 months after ICD implantation, and most episodes (86%) were due to VT. Electrical storm was a significant risk factor for subsequent death, independent of ejection fraction and other prognostic variables (relative risk [RR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 4.2; P = 0.003), but VT/VF unrelated to electrical storm was not (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.7; P = 0.9). The risk of death was greatest 3 months after electrical storm (RR, 5.4; 95% Cl, 2.4 to 12.3; P = 0.0001) and diminished beyond this time (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.6; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Electrical storm is an important, independent marker for subsequent death among ICD recipients, particularly in the first 3 months after its occurrence. However, the development of VT/VF unrelated to electrical storm does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of subsequent death.     

Beta-blocker use and survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial.

OBJECTIVES: 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). BACKGROUND: The ability of beta-blockers to alter the mortality of patients with VF or VT receiving contemporary medical management is not well defined. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with coronary artery disease: role of electrophysiologic study

Sixty-two consecutive patients with chronic coronary artery disease referred for evaluation of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) underwent electrophysiologic studies. Sustained VT was induced by one to three ventricular extrastimuli in 28 patients (45%). Therapy was guided by the results of electrophysiologic testing in 44 patients: 19 patients without inducible sustained VT received no antiarrhythmic therapy, and 25 patients with inducible sustained or symptomatic nonsustained VT received therapy guided by the results of electrophysiologic studies. The results of electrophysiologic studies were ignored by physicians for a second group of 18 patients: four had inducible sustained VT but received no antiarrhythmic therapy, and 14 had inducible sustained or nonsustained VT and received antiarrhythmic therapy not guided by results of electrophysiologic testing. After a mean follow-up period of 28 months, 11 patients had died suddenly. Seven of the 11 patients who died suddenly had inducible sustained VT. Three of 44 patients in the group receiving therapy guided by electrophysiologic studies died suddenly versus eight of 18 in the group receiving therapy not guided by electrophysiologic studies (p = .001). Only one of 19 patients without inducible sustained VT who were not treated experienced sudden death. Two of four patients with inducible sustained VT who did not receive antiarrhythmic therapy died suddenly. Multivariate analysis of the relationship of induced arrhythmias, left ventricular ejection fraction, site of myocardial infarction, history of syncope, or type of antiarrhythmic therapy to outcome revealed a greater than twofold increased risk for sudden cardiac death in patients whose therapy was not guided by results of electrophysiologic study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)