Key result
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators and antiarrhythmic therapies such as amiodarone and beta-blockers are effective in reducing sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients.
Why the study?
Does ICD therapy reduce mortality compared to conventional drug therapy in patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death?
Does ICD therapy reduce mortality compared to conventional drug therapy in patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death?
This review highlights early evidence from the MADIT trial that prophylactic ICD implantation significantly reduces mortality in high-risk post-MI patients compared to conventional antiarrhythmic drugs.
Supports consideration of ICDs and antiarrhythmics in high-risk patients; leaves open need for updated trials in contemporary populations.
While post-myocardial infarct patients with frequent ventricular premature contractions or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) are at an increased risk of sudden arrhythmic death, the empirical use of antiarrhythmic agents for such patients is no longer justified after the results of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. A series of major breakthroughs in the design and clinical application of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have taken place over the past two decades since its invention by M Mirowski. Although there is a general consensus for the effectiveness of the ICD therapy in aborting sudden arrhythmic death, it is unknown whether the use of the ICD therapy results in prolonged survival. Three randomized clinical trials directed to the survivors of cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) are currently in progress, comparing the ICD therapy with drug therapy (amiodarone, beta blockers, and sotalol). Already over seventeen hundred patients have been randomized and followed in these three clinical trials. All three trials continue currently indicating no emergence of statistically significant differences in total mortality between the two therapy groups. Prophylactic application of the ICD has been studied in the MADIT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial)--the first randomized clinical trial dealing with implantable defibrillators. This study enrolled post-transmural infarct patients having documented NSVT, left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction 35% or lower) and inducible and nonsuppressible NSVT. The study was recently terminated because of an emergence of a highly significant lower mortality with the ICD therapy than with conventional drug therapy. The future for patients at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death is much brighter with future refinement of the ICD system and antiarrhythmic drug therapy, and with further improvement in the therapy directed at the underlying structural heart disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Toshio Akiyama (1996) conducted a review in Ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators and antiarrhythmic drugs vs. Conventional medical therapy was evaluated. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators and antiarrhythmic therapies such as amiodarone and beta-blockers are effective in reducing sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: