Advertisement

Have MADIT and Recent Post Myocardial Infarction Amiodarone Studies Changed the Classical Indications for ICD Implantation?

  • S. H. Hohnloser
  • F. Bogun

Abstract

Sudden cardiac death still accounts for approximately 200 000 to 400 000 premature deaths in the USA [1] and thus continues to be a major challenge in today’s cardiology. Within the last 12 months, several well controlled prospective studies have been published concerning the value of prophylactic implantation of the cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) [2] and the administration of amiodarone to improve survival of patients after myocardial infarction [3, 4]. For the practicing cardiologist and even more so for the electrophysiologist, these trials pose the question whether one of these studies, taken alone or combined, impact on current indications for the implantation of the ICD. Therefore, it is the purpose of this short review to summarize the main findings of these major trials and put them into perspective with respect to our current therapy aiming at preventing sudden cardiac death.

Keywords

Heart Rate Variability Sudden Cardiac Death Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Arrhythmic Death Antiarrhythmic Versus Implantable Defibrillator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gillum RF (1989) Sudden coronary death in the United States: 1980–1985. Circulation 79: 756–765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al (1996) Improved survival with an implanted defibrillator in patients with coronary disease at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med 335: 1933–1940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Julian DG, Camm AJ, Frangin G, et al (1997) Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. Lancet 349: 667–674Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cairns JA, Connolly SJ, Roberts R, Gent M for the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial Investigators (1997) Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT. Lancet 349: 675–682Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehmann MH, Saksena S (1991) Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in cardiovascular practice: report of the policy conference of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. PACE 14: 969–979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Task force of the working groups on arrhythmias and cardiac pacing of the European Society of Cardiology (1992) Guidelines for the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Eur Heart J 13: 1304–1310Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman PL, Stevenson WG (1996) Unsustained ventricular tachycardia–to treat or not to treat. N Engl J Med 335: 1984–1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maik M, Camm AJ, Julian DG, Frangin G, Janse JM, Schwartz PJ, Simon P (1997) Benefit of amiodarone treatment after myocardial infarction in patients with increased heart rate: influence of concurrent beta-blocker therapy. PACE 20: 378 (abstr)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dorian P, Newman D, Connolly S, Roberts R, Gent M, Cairns J (1997) Beta blockade may be necessary for amiodarone to exert its antiarrhythmic benefit - results from CAMIAT. Pace 20: 377 (abstr)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Connolly SI (1997) Report on AIMA results. Presented at NASPE, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB et al (1991) Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med 324: 781–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial II Investigators (1992) Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 327: 227–233Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Waldo AL, Camm AJ, de Ruyter H, Friedman PL, MacNeil DJ, Pauls JF, Pitt B, Pratt CM, Schwartz PJ, Veltri EP for the SWORD Investigators (1996) Effect of d-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent and remote myocardial infarction. Lancet 348: 7–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hohnloser SH, Klingenheben T (1997) Clinical utility of baroreflex sensitivity measurements. Cardiac Electrophysiology Review (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hohnloser SH, Klingenheben T, Zabel M, Li Y-G (1997) Heart rate variability used an arrhythmia risk stratifer after myocardial infarction. PACE (in press)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenbaum D, Albrecht P, Cohen RJ (1996) Predicting sudden cardiac death from T wave alternans of the surface electrocardiogram: promise and pitfalls. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 7: 1095–1111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The AVID investigators (1995) Antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID)–rationale, design and methods. Am J Cardiol 75: 470–475Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zipes DP (1997) Results of AVID. Presented at NASPE, New OrleansGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. H. Hohnloser
    • 1
  • F. Bogun
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of CardiologyJ.W. Goethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations