This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Reiffel, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Reiffel, J. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Data-driven Decisions: The Importance of Clinical Trials in Arrhythmia Management

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Arrhythmia Service, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, New York

As a result of clinical trials, the management of arrhythmias has evolved over the past three decades. In the late 1960s, customary teaching was that ventricular premature depolarizations were dangerous and antiarrhythmic therapy, in hopes of reducing fatal consequences, became common place; however, following clinical trials such as CAST, IMPACT, and SWORD, we learned that, at least in postinfarct patients, arrhythmia suppression may lead to increased rather than reduced mortality. Such trials have led to a marked reduction in therapy of indiscriminate ventricular ectopy and have led to ongoing testing of specific subgroups identified as having par ticularly high adverse prognostic risk. With the advent of cardiac monitoring and the confirma tion that ventricular tachyarrhythmias are the most common cause for sudden death, their therapy, too, has evolved and matured, again aided by clinical trials. The ESVEM study prospec tively examined the role of monitor-guided versus electrophysiologically guided drug therapy of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and confirmed that both approaches may have a role in reducing arrhythmic deaths—though the specific benefits of each technique remain somewhat unsettled. Both the ESVEM and CASCADE studies suggested that the most effective drugs for ventricu lar tachyarrhythmias are the class II/III drugs, sotalol and amiodarone, both appearing more effective than our older class I agents. These should now be viewed as the first-line drugs for these arrhythmias. The relative benefits of these two agents with respect to each other and to implantable cardioverter detibrillators, however, remains to be determined by further clinical tri als, such as AVID and CIDS. The therapy of atrial tachyarrhythmias has similarly evolved with the aid of clinical observations. While rate control is required in all patients with atrial fibrilla tion, we have come to realize that the applications of antiarrhythmic drugs for the purpose of maintaining sinus rhythm must be used only selectively rather than uniformly. Both a meta-anal ysis by Coplen and colleagues and a report by the SPAF investigators suggested that with atrial arrhythmias, too, antiarrhythmic drug therapy may result in enhanced rather than reduced mor tality in some circumstances. Additional clinical trials are needed to further elucidate the role of antiarrhythmic therapy of atrial fibrillation.

Key Words: ventricular tachycardia • atrial fibrillation • myocardial infarction • ventricular pre mature depolarizations.

Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 79-88 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/107424849600100112


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?