These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Risk stratification and clinical outcome of minimally symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and coronary disease: a prospective single-center study.
    Author: Giorgberidze I, Saksena S, Krol RB, Munsif AN, Kolettis T, Mathew P, Varanasi S, Prakash A, Delfaut P, Lewis CB.
    Journal: Am J Cardiol; 1997 Sep 11; 80(5B):3F-9F. PubMed ID: 9291444.
    Abstract:
    The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) showed improved survival with defibrillator therapy but was restricted to coronary artery disease patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) and inducible nonsupressible VT. The outcome of patients without inducible VT or inducible but suppressed VT still remains unclear. We performed risk stratification at electrophysiologic (EP) study in 111 consecutive unselected patients with nonsustained VT and coronary artery disease and randomized them to drug or device therapy. Follow-up on selected therapy was 1-71 (mean 27 +/- 20) months. Of 111 patients, 39 patients (35%) had inducible sustained VT at baseline EP study and were stratified to a "higher" risk group (group 1) for sudden death. In 9 of these patients (group 1A), sustained VT was suppressed with class IA antiarrhythmic drugs; in the remaining 30 patients (group 1B) sustained VT was not suppressed with class IA antiarrhythmic drugs. The other 72 of 111 patients (65%) had no inducible sustained VT at EP study and were stratified to a "lower"-risk group (group 2) for sudden death. Mean LVEF in group 1 was 30 +/- 10% versus 37 +/- 9% in group 2 (p = 0.001). Selected therapy in group 1 was an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (16 patients) or guided drug therapy (electrophysiologically guided class I antiarrhythmic drugs = 7 patients; Holter-guided class III antiarrhythmic drugs = 16 patients). In group 2, empiric drug therapy included beta blockers in 29 patients or Holter-guided class III antiarrhythmic drugs in 17 patients, with no antiarrhythmic drug therapy being administered in 26 patients. Mean LVEF tended to be lower in patients receiving class III antiarrhythmic drug therapy (34 +/- 12%) than in patients receiving beta blockers (40 +/- 10%, p = 0.06). Three-year total survival was comparable in group 1 (70%) and in group 2 (81%), but sudden cardiac death mortality tended to be lower in group 1 versus group 2 (0 vs 9%, p = 0.09). Patients receiving class III antiarrhythmic therapy had significantly higher 3-year all cause (40%, p = 0.04) and sudden death (25%, p = 0.06) mortality than patients receiving beta blockers (17% and 8% respectively) or no antiarrhythmic drug therapy (4% and 0%, respectively). The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis: (1) Electrophysiologically guided drug therapy and implantable defibrillators can minimize the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with coronary artery disease and inducible sustained VT stratified to higher risk of sudden death. A comparable outcome with respect to sudden death prevention in drug-suppressed or drug-refractory patients suggests limited prognostic benefit of class IA drug testing. (2) Lower-risk patients with severely depressed LVEF and minimal or no symptoms do not have a favorable outcome with respect to sudden and all-cause mortality on Holter-guided class III drug therapy. However, asymptomatic patients with mildly depressed left ventricular function have low sudden death event rates on beta blocker or no antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]