Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Shocks from Pacemaker Cardioverter Defibrillators Increase with Amiodarone in Patients at High Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The efficacy of amiodarone used in combination with a pacemaker cardioverter defibrillator (PCD) to decrease episodes of ventricular tachycardia and subsequent PCD shocks is not clear. We examined a retrospective registry of 82 patients with PCD implantation to define the efficacy of amiodarone treatment. We compared patients treated with amiodarone (for 24 consecutive months without interruption) versus no amiodarone. In patients treated with amiodarone there was a 3-fold increase (p = 0.02) in PCD shocks; in patients not on beta-blockers, amiodarone resulted in a 6-fold increase (p < 0.05) in PCD shocks. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction >30% on amiodarone and patients <72 years old had increases (p < 0.05) in PCD shocks. In conclusion, patients treated with amiodarone had more PCD shocks than those not treated. These findings are unexpected and merit a prospective study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg . Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study.

          Three randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have been reported with what might appear to be different results. The present analysis was performed to obtain the most precise estimate of the efficacy of the ICD, compared to amiodarone, for prolonging survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia. Individual patient data from the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) study, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) were merged into a master database according to a pre-specified protocol. Proportional hazard modelling of individual patient data was used to estimate hazard ratios and to investigate subgroup interactions. Fixed effect meta-analysis techniques were also used to evaluate treatment effects and to assess heterogeneity across studies. The classic fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the estimates of ICD benefit from the three studies were consistent with each other (P heterogeneity=0.306). It also showed a significant reduction in death from any cause with the ICD; with a summary hazard ratio (ICD:amiodarone) of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.60, 0.87;P=0.0006). For the outcome of arrhythmic death, the hazard ratio was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.37, 0.67;P<0.0001). Survival was extended by a mean of 4.4 months by the ICD over a follow-up period of 6 years. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35% derived significantly more benefit from ICD therapy than those with better preserved left ventricular function. Patients treated before the availability of non-thoracotomy ICD implants derived significantly less benefit from ICD therapy than those treated in the non-thoracotomy era. Results from the three trials of the ICD vs amiodarone are consistent with each other. There is a 28% reduction in the relative risk of death with the ICD that is due almost entirely to a 50% reduction in arrhythmic death. Copyright 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevention of implantable-defibrillator shocks by treatment with sotalol. d,l-Sotalol Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Study Group.

              Patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators often receive adjunctive antiarrhythmic therapy to prevent frequent shocks. We tested the efficacy and safety of sotalol, a beta-blocker with class III antiarrhythmic effects, for this purpose. In a multicenter trial, patients were stratified according to left ventricular ejection fraction ( 0.30), randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with 160 to 320 mg of sotalol per day (151 patients) or matching placebo (151 patients), and followed for 12 months. Kaplan-Meier analyses of the time to an event were performed. Three end points were used: the delivery of a first shock for any reason or death from any cause, the first appropriate shock for a ventricular arrhythmia or death from any cause, and the first inappropriate shock for a supraventricular arrhythmia or death from any cause. Compliance with double-blind treatment was similar in the two groups. There were seven deaths in the placebo group and four in the sotalol group. As compared with placebo, treatment with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause or the delivery of a first shock for any reason (reduction in risk, 48 percent; P<0.001 by the log-rank test), death from any cause or the delivery of a first appropriate shock (reduction in risk, 44 percent; P=0.007), or death from any cause or the delivery of a first inappropriate shock (reduction in risk, 64 percent; P=0.004). Sotalol also reduced the mean (+/-SD) frequency of shocks due to any cause (1.43+/-3.53 shocks per year, as compared with 3.89+/-10.65 in the placebo group; P=0.008). In the sotalol group, the reduction in the risk of death from any cause or the delivery of a first shock for any reason did not differ significantly between patients with ejection fractions of more than 0.30 and those with ejection fractions of 0.30 or less. Oral sotalol was safe and efficacious in reducing the risk of death or the delivery of a first defibrillator shock whether or not ventricular function was depressed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                CRD
                Cardiology
                10.1159/issn.0008-6312
                Cardiology
                S. Karger AG
                0008-6312
                1421-9751
                2003
                November 2003
                21 November 2003
                : 100
                : 3
                : 143-148
                Affiliations
                Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Southern Arizona VA Health Care System and Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., USA
                Article
                73932 Cardiology 2003;100:143–148
                10.1159/000073932
                14631135
                © 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Tables: 2, References: 40, Pages: 6
                Categories
                Arrhythmias & Electrophysiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article