August 7, 1986New England Journal of Medicine
Testing the Efficacy of Antiarrhythmic Drugs
Why the study?
Does the presence of inducible ventricular tachycardia during antiarrhythmic drug therapy predict worse clinical outcomes compared to non-inducible VT, in the absence of frequent spontaneous ventricular ectopy?
Population
Patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias undergoing ambulatory electrocardiographic…
Comparison
Antiarrhythmic drug therapy with continued… vs Antiarrhythmic drug therapy without inducible…
Design
Editorial
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Highlights that suppression of spontaneous ventricular ectopy on Holter may be a sufficient marker of antiarrhythmic drug efficacy even if VT remains inducible on EP study.
Structured PICO
Does the presence of inducible ventricular tachycardia during antiarrhythmic drug therapy predict worse clinical outcomes compared to non-inducible VT, in the absence of frequent spontaneous ventricular ectopy?
P
Population
Patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias undergoing ambulatory (Holter) electrocardiographic monitoring and electrophysiologic study (programmed electrical stimulation)
I
Intervention
Antiarrhythmic drug therapy with continued inducible ventricular tachycardia but without frequent spontaneous ventricular ectopy on Holter
C
Comparator
Antiarrhythmic drug therapy without inducible ventricular tachycardia
O
Outcome
Clinical outcome
Highlights that suppression of spontaneous ventricular ectopy on Holter may be a sufficient marker of antiarrhythmic drug efficacy even if VT remains inducible on EP study.
Cite This Study
Anderson et al. (1986) studied this question.