Have MADIT and Recent Post Myocardial Infarction Amiodarone Studies Changed the Classical Indications for ICD Implantation?
Sudden cardiac death still accounts for approximately 200 000 to 400 000 premature deaths in the USA  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)  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.
KeywordsHeart Rate Variability Sudden Cardiac Death Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Arrhythmic Death Antiarrhythmic Versus Implantable Defibrillator
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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.Connolly SI (1997) Report on AIMA results. Presented at NASPE, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.Hohnloser SH, Klingenheben T (1997) Clinical utility of baroreflex sensitivity measurements. Cardiac Electrophysiology Review (in press)Google Scholar
- 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
- 17.The AVID investigators (1995) Antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID)–rationale, design and methods. Am J Cardiol 75: 470–475Google Scholar
- 18.Zipes DP (1997) Results of AVID. Presented at NASPE, New OrleansGoogle Scholar