Why the study?
Does antiarrhythmic therapy guided by serial electrophysiological study reduce arrhythmia recurrence or mortality compared to electrocardiographic monitoring in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias?
Does antiarrhythmic therapy guided by serial electrophysiological study reduce arrhythmia recurrence or mortality compared to electrocardiographic monitoring in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias?
Guiding antiarrhythmic therapy by electrophysiological study offers no advantage over electrocardiographic monitoring for preventing arrhythmia recurrence or mortality, though sotalol therapy was associated with reduced recurrence.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Neither guidance method shows superiority; leaves open optimal monitoring choice in ventricular tachyarrhythmias.
The ESVEM (Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring) trial was a prospective, randomized study, initiated in 1983, to compare the outcome of patients in whom antiarrhythmic therapy was guided by serial electrophysiological study with the outcome of patients in whom therapy was guided by electrocardiographic monitoring. In a surprising finding, there was no difference in rates of arrhythmia recurrence or mortality between the two methods. Subsequent reanalyses using more stringent criteria for both methods or a combined assessment have not significantly improved the predictive accuracy of guided therapy. Because drug therapy in each limb was also randomized, a comparison of specific antiarrhythmic agents was also possible: sotalol therapy and the absence of previous antiarrhythmic drug therapy were associated with a reduction in arrhythmia recurrence. Survey data suggest that the results of this trial have influenced clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael J. Reiter (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: