PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 7, 2006European Heart Journal193 citationsOpen Access

Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial

View Full Paper
SHStefan H. HohnloserHAHussein R. Al‐KhalidiCPC. M. Pratt

Structured PICO

Does azimilide reduce the risk of electrical storm in ICD recipients?

P
Population
633 ICD recipients
I
Intervention
Azimilide (75 mg/day and 125 mg/day)
C
Comparator
Placebo
O
Outcome
Incidence and time-to-first electrical storm (≥3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h)hard clinical

Electrical storm is common in ICD recipients and strongly predicts hospitalization, and azimilide 125 mg/day may significantly reduce the risk of recurrent electrical storm.

Abstract

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, features, and clinical sequelae of 'electrical storm' (ES). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a prospectively designed secondary analysis of SHIELD; a randomized trial of azimilide for suppression of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) leading to implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Systematic and rigorous follow-up and blinded adjudication of ICD therapy allowed identification of all ESs (>/=3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h). Of 633 ICD recipients, 148 (23%) experienced at least one ES over 1-year follow-up. No clinical predictors of ES were identified. Frequent VT episodes accounted for 91% of all ESs, with the remaining being VF alone or both VT plus VF. ES led to a 3.1-fold increase in arrhythmia-related hospitalization (95% CI 2.3-4.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients with isolated VT/VF, and to a 10.2-fold increase (95% CI 6.4-16.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients without VT/VF. Compared with placebo, azimilide (75 and 125 mg/day) reduced the risk of recurrent ES by 37% (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11, P=0.11) and 55% (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87, P=0.018), respectively. However, the reduction in time-to-first ES did not reach statistical significance by both doses (75 and 125 mg) of azimilide (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19, P=0.29 and HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.04, P=0.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: ES is common and unpredictable in ICD recipients and it is a strong predictor of hospitalization.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hohnloser et al. (2006) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7cd78037b87b49edee2420https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehl276
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Electrical storm: still a cryptogenic phenomenon?2006 · 11 citations
  2. 2Electrical Storm in Patients with an Implanted Defibrillator: A Matter of Definition2007 · 128 citations
  3. 3Electrical Storms in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator2010 · 6 citations
  4. 4Predictors of electrical storm recurrences in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators2010 · 40 citations
  5. 5Electrical storm is an independent predictor of adverse long-term outcome in the era of implantable defibrillator therapy2005 · 158 citations