Does antiarrhythmic drug therapy reduce arrhythmic death and total mortality in patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias?
Amiodarone, sotalol, and beta-blockers appear more effective than class I antiarrhythmics for managing sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias, though definitive mortality benefits await further randomized trials.
Antiarrhythmic drug therapy of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias is undertaken to reduce arrhythmic symptoms, recurrences, and mortality. Ideally, reduction of arrhythmic death will reduce total mortality as well, although this may not hold true in the presence of competing risk. Whether, in fact, antiarrhythmic therapy actually reduces arrhythmic death remains uncertain in the absence of any placebo-controlled trials. Nonetheless, the following conclusions can be drawn from the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), and the Cardiac Arrest in Seattle: Conventional versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) study, as well as a β blocker study by Steinbeck et al: (1) class I antiarrhythmics are less effective than amiodarone or sotalol for the prevention of recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation; (2) sympathetic inhibition as a component of the antiarrhythmic regimen may strongly contribute to mortality reduction; and (3) the respective roles of antiarrhythmic drugs, implantable devices, and the concurrent use of both are in a state of flux, awaiting results of randomized controlled clinical trials.
James A. Reiffel (Wed,) studied this question.