Biomedical subjects

Alfred P Hallstrom

Publications and source records attributed to Alfred P Hallstrom.

18 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

What is the appropriate outcome for studies of treatments for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest?

BACKGROUND: A good outcome following out-of-hospital medical care for cardiac arrest is survival to hospital discharge. Because a large number of patients are required to detect a minimum clinically important difference in survival, an intermediate outcome such as hospital admittance is commonly used. For an intermediate outcome to be a useful surrogate, the survival rate conditional on achieving the intermediate outcome should not depend upon the field treatment. If so, an advantage of the intermediate outcome may be a smaller sample size. However, recent trials demonstrate that survival conditional on admittance may depend upon the field treatment. Even if the resources are available to power a study for survival, is survival the right outcome? For example, no increase in survival and a large increase in admittance could be considered a bad result, as it represents a substantial waste of resources. Similarly no increase in mortality and a decrease in admittance should be considered a good result, as it represents a substantial cost savings without any sacrifice of life. Both admittance and survival are important outcomes and need to be considered jointly, that is, as a bivariate outcome. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness concepts are used to distinguish between a good and bad (bivariate) outcome. Simulations are conducted to compare the impact of the univariate and the bivariate outcomes in a variety of trial scenarios. A table of sample sizes is computed for the bivariate outcome across a range of trial scenarios. RESULTS: The bivariate outcome outperforms both univariate outcomes for most alternatives. The required sample size for the joint outcome of admittance and survival may be substantially, over 50%, less than that for the survival outcome alone. CONCLUSION: Use of the bivariate outcome could provide more informed decision making about resuscitation strategies and at less cost then the current gold standard of hospital survival.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗

PubMed2006

A history of heart failure predicts arrhythmia treatment efficacy: data from the Antiarrythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study.

BACKGROUND: In survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT), a history of CHF (HxCHF) before the VT episode may provide different prognostic information than their measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: We evaluated outcomes from patients in the AVID study. Patients were included in the study if they presented with ventricular fibrillation, VT with syncope or VT with hemodynamic compromise, and LVEF < or = 40%. Treatment options included implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), usually amiodarone. RESULTS: As expected, a HxCHF is associated with an increased and high risk of arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic death. However, an interaction was observed between arrhythmia treatment (ICD or AAD) and HxCHF status: the survival advantage with an ICD, as compared with AAD therapy, is largely restricted to HxCHF patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD is no better than AAD therapy in preventing arrhythmic death in patients with no HxCHF. In this data set, a HxCHF is somewhat more accurate in predicting prognosis and the response to therapy than a reduced LVEF.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

A comparison of the AVID and DAVID trials of implantable defibrillators.

We compared 2 studies of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) to determine the effects of device mode on outcomes. The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial (1993 to 1997) demonstrated improved survival with the ICD compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The Dual-chamber And VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) trial (2000 to 2002) showed that VVI pacing at 40 beats/min in patients with ICDs reduced the combined end point of death and hospitalization for congestive heart failure compared with DDDR pacing at 70 beats/min. Patients in the AVID trial (631 of 1,016) and the DAVID trial (221 of 506) meeting common inclusion and all exclusion criteria were studied. The major end points were the time to death, and the composite end point of time to death or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Patients in the AVID and DAVID trials were similar, but more AVID patients had coronary artery disease (p = 0.04), history of myocardial infarction (p = 0.005), and previous ventricular arrhythmias (p = 0.03). DAVID patients underwent more previous revascularization procedures (coronary artery bypass surgery, p = 0.03; percutaneous coronary intervention, p = 0.001), and were more often taking beta-blocking drugs at hospital discharge (p <0.001). The backup VVI ICD groups in both studies had similar outcomes (p = 0.4), even when corrected for the previous demographic differences. The time-to- composite end point was similar in AVID patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs and DAVID patients treated with DDDR ICDs (p = 0.6). Despite improved pharmacologic therapy and revascularization, outcomes have not improved with backup VVI pacing ICDs. If DDDR ICDs had been used in the AVID trial, benefit from ICDs for patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias could have been missed.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2005

Characteristics of heart beat intervals and prediction of death.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value for improving risk stratification of measures, unadjusted and adjusted for heart rate, of heart rate variability (HRV) and heart rate turbulence (HRT) based on 2- to 24-h ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings; and to relate this to the decision to use an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and the attendant consequences on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. BACKGROUND: Risk stratification for high risk or low risk of lethal ventricular arrhythmic events, and hence for a decision about defibrillator implant, most commonly utilizes the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Electrocardiographic (ECG) approaches include 24-h ambulatory ECG recordings, with counts of ventricular premature contractions (VPCs), measures of heart rate variability (HRV), and heart rate turbulence (HRT). HRT has two components: turbulence onset (TO) and turbulence slope (TS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the qualifying ambulatory ECG recordings from 744 patients in the active treatment arms of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST). Beat characteristics, VPC counts, normal-to-normal beat intervals, and time-domain measures of HRV and HRT were calculated. Tachograms were rescaled to a heart rate of 75 and the resulting "normalized" measures evaluated as risk predictors for death, compared to unnormalized measures. Measures based on 2-h ECGs were also evaluated as risk predictors. The most powerful univariate predictor of survival was the normalized turbulence slope. The best multivariate prediction model had six components: history of angina, hypertension, diabetes, and absence of post-myocardial infarction revascularization, the log of LVEF, normalized TS, HR, and an interaction term of HR and normalized TS. Gains in effectiveness from use of this model cost between $0 and $4000 per year of life saved. CONCLUSIONS: Turbulence slope substantially exceeded other ECG-based measures in improving prediction of subsequent death in models which included LVEF, and other clinical parameters. Use of this model would improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ICD.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac↗

PubMed2005

Percent right ventricular pacing predicts outcomes in the DAVID trial.

BACKGROUND: The Dual-Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) trial demonstrated a worse outcome in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) programmed to DDDR at 70 bpm compared with patients who had ICDs programmed to VVI backup pacing at 40 bpm. Pacing was more frequent in the DDDR group. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether right ventricular pacing (RV) is an independent predictor of outcome in the DAVID trial. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship of percent RV pacing to the composite endpoint of death or hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Patients who had a 3-month follow-up and who had not yet reached an endpoint were included in the study. Using Cox regression analysis (VVI group N = 195; DDDR group N = 185), we examined multiple factors, including percent RV pacing at 3-month follow-up, that might be associated with adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Percent RV pacing as a continuous variable was correlated with the primary endpoint. As a dichotomous variable, the best separation for predicting endpoints occurred with DDDR RV pacing > 40% vs DDDR RV pacing < or = 40% (P = .025). Patients with DDDR RV pacing < or = 40% had similar or better outcomes to the VVI backup group (P = .07). Correction for baseline variables predictive of the composite outcome in the (nonpaced) VVI group (use of nitrates, increased heart rate, and increased age) did not change the findings for RV pacing (P = .008). In contrast, atrial pacing was not predictive of worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: These results suggest, but do not prove, a causal relationship between frequent RV pacing and adverse outcomes in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40%.

Cardiac Pacing, Artificial↗

PubMed2005

Pre-randomization and de-randomization in emergency medical research: new names and rigorous criteria for old methods.

Clinical trials are performed to determine if a therapy is effective in the treatment of a disease. The methods of randomization and blinding are used to assure that the only planned difference between the two groups is the therapy itself, and differences in outcome cannot be attributed to bias. Emergency medical conditions, and in particular therapies that must be administered in an emergency, present challenges to inclusion, exclusion, randomization, and blinding that are at times insurmountable in the context of available resources. Pre-randomization (that is, assigning the therapy to be used before the event occurs) and de-randomization (that is, removing randomized cases that do not meet established inclusion criteria) may address some of the challenges resulting from emergency enrollment but have the potential to create bias. We describe these techniques, and provide criteria that should be employed if pre-randomization and/or de-randomization are being considered. It is possible to use these techniques to successfully complete clinical trials that would not have been possible using only standard methodology and still ensure that results are without bias.

Emergency Medicine↗

PubMed2004

Measuring survival rates from sudden cardiac arrest: the elusive definition.

BACKGROUND: Measuring survival from sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) is often used as a benchmark of the quality of a community's emergency medical service (EMS) system. The definition of OOH-CA survival rates depends both upon the numerator (surviving cases) and the denominator (all cases). PURPOSE: The purpose of the public access defibrillation (PAD) trial was to measure the impact on survival of adding an automated external defibrillator (AED) to a volunteer response system trained in CPR. This paper reports the definition of OOH-CA developed by the PAD trial investigators, and it evaluates alternative statistical methods used to assess differences in reported "survival." METHODS: Case surveillance was limited to the prospectively determined geographic boundaries of the participating trial units. The numerator in calculating a survival rate should include only those patients who survived an event but who otherwise would have died except for the application of some facet of emergency medical care-in this trial a defibrillatory shock. Among denominators considered were: total population of the study unit, all deaths within the study unit, and documented ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrests. The PAD classification focused upon cases that might have benefited from the early use of an AED, in addition to the likely benefit from early recognition of OOH-CA, early access of EMS, and early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Results of this classification system were used to evaluate the impact of the PAD definition on the distribution of cardiac arrest case types between CPR only and CPR + AED units. RESULTS: Potential OOH-CA episodes were classified into one of four groups: definite, probable, uncertain, or not an OOH-CA. About half of cardiac arrests in the PAD units were judged to be definite OOH-CA events and therefore potentially treatable with an AED. However, events that occurred in CPR-only units were less likely to be classified as definite or probable OOH-CA events than those in CPR + AED units (43% versus 55%, odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.07). The study retained sufficient power to permit a statistical analysis of the alternative hypothesis that the CPR + AED method results in twice as many survivors as a CPR-only approach. The result is critically dependent on the denominator used for calculating survival rates; but the analysis does not require a denominator as the numerators will have identical Poisson distributions (counts for rare events) under the null hypothesis since randomization distributes the risk of cardiac arrest evenly between the two arms. CONCLUSION: Reported OOH-CA rates and survival rates vary widely, depending upon the definitions applied to events. Rigorous assessment of treatments applied to improve survival can be obscured by inappropriate definitions. Large-scale randomized interventions designed to improve survival from OOH-CA can be evaluated based upon the absolute numbers of patients surviving, rather than a change in the proportion surviving.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗

PubMed2004

Structural relationships between measures based on heart beat intervals: potential for improved risk assessment.

Decreased left ventricular ejection fraction is the most commonly used risk factor for identification of patients at high-risk for lethal ventricular arrhythmic events. Twenty-four-hour electrocardiographic (ECG) approaches to risk stratification include: counts of ventricular premature contractions (VPCs), measures of heart rate variability (HRV), and heart rate turbulence (HRT) which has two components, turbulence onset and turbulence slope (TS). Refinement of these ECG risk stratifiers could enhance their clinical utility. We explored the structural relationships between heart rate (HR) and HRV and HRT measures. Our goal was to separate out the component of these measures due to the underlying average heart rate (HR), thus potentially reducing the variability of the measures and increasing their power to stratify risk. We proposed re-scaling tachograms of heart-beat intervals so that the re-scaled tachogram has a HR of 75 (or equivalently an average interval of 800 ms) and calculating HRV and HRT from the rescaled time series. We also explored the relationship between the number of VPCs and HRT. We showed that TS is structurally related to the number of VPCs (and hence to the length of the ECG recording). We proposed an adjusted TS that is independent of the number of VPCs. We also addressed the ability of shorter ECG recording to estimate HRV and HRT measures. We evaluated standard and rescaled HRV and HRT measures using qualifying ambulatory ECG recordings from 744 patients in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. We found that measures based on the rescaled tachogram had reduced variance (20% to 40%). Correlations between measures were also substantially reduced. We also found substantial circadian effects on some, but not all HRV indices, not explained by the circadian pattern in HR and possibly pointing to additional measures for risk prediction. In conclusion, we found that adjusting for HR and the number of VPCs in heart-beat related ambulatory ECG measures has the potential to significantly improve the power of these measures to risk stratify cardiac patients.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2004

Lower observed versus expected (based on U.S. age and gender specific rates) survival in patients treated for near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have improved survival for patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or sustained vertricular tachycardia (VT). However, the survival of these patients compared to the general population has not been assessed. Observed survival rates for patients randomized to either antiarrhythmic drug therapy (mainly amiodarone) arm or ICD arm were compared to expected rates, calculated using age and sex-specific survival rates derived from the 1989-1991 US population life tables and applied to the age and sex distribution of patients in each arm. Consistent with the results of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, patients randomized to receive ICDs experienced significantly higher survival than those in the drug arm; however, both groups experienced significantly lower survival than expected using age and gender matched U.S. survival rates. Within arms, the difference between the observed and expected rates increased over 3 years of follow-up from 7.7% to 15.3% for the ICD arm, and from 14.6% to 26.4% for the drug arm. These results quantify the improvements in survival that can be expected for VF or VT patients using drug or ICD therapies and underscore the need for continued research into methods for further improving the overall level of health of these patients.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Are lipid-lowering drugs also antiarrhythmic drugs? An analysis of the Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the antiarrhythmic effects of lipid-lowering drug therapy as assessed by ventricular tachyarrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia [VT]/ventricular fibrillation [VF]) recurrences recorded by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease (ASHD). BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of lipid-lowering drugs suggest reduction of sudden death (SD) in patients with ASHD. Because SD is usually secondary to VT/VF, this observation suggests that lipid-lowering therapy has antiarrhythmic effects. METHODS: The probability of VT/VF recurrence in patients with ASHD treated with an ICD in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial who did not receive lipid-lowering drug therapy (n = 279) was compared with that in patients who received early and consistent lipid-lowering therapy (n = 83). In addition, all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality of all patients in the AVID trial with ASHD who did not receive lipid-lowering therapy (n = 564) were compared with that of those who received early and consistent lipid-lowering therapy (n = 149). RESULTS: Using multivariate analyses, lipid-lowering therapy was associated with a reduction in the relative hazard for VT/VF recurrence of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15 to 0.58) (adjusted p = 0.003) in the ICD subgroup. Lipid-lowering therapy was also associated with a reduction in the relative hazard for all-cause mortality of 0.36 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.68) (adjusted p = 0.03) and a reduction in the relative hazard for cardiac mortality of 0.39 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.78) (adjusted p = 0.04) in the larger study population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ASHD who have received an ICD, lipid-lowering therapy is associated with reduction in the probability of VT/VF recurrence, suggesting that part of the benefit of lipid-lowering therapy may be due to an antiarrhythmic effect.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Dispatcher assisted CPR: implementation and potential benefit. A 12-year study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives are to describe details of the dispatcher assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction program we implemented during a 12 years study and to provide estimates of the potential number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that might benefit from such instruction based on data from the last 77 months. METHODS: Basic data were obtained for all episodes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the city of Seattle, as well as all emergency medical services (EMS) dispatches for suspected cardiac arrest. In addition to EMS run reports, data sources included audio tapes of dispatches, and interviews of callers. These data were used in a potential benefit analysis. RESULTS: Over a period of 77 months, 54% (3320/6130) of cardiac arrests received advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) by Seattle Fire Department emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics. We estimated that 29.9% (994/3320) of cardiac arrests in Seattle treated by EMS could have theoretically benefited from dispatcher assisted CPR. No serious adverse consequences of a dispatcher assisted CPR program were observed. Failure to identify a cardiac arrest by dispatchers was largely attributed to deviation from a well-defined protocol. However, non-arrests identified, initially as arrests appeared to be unavoidable. CONCLUSIONS: In the city of Seattle, some 29.9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims who received ACLS had the potential to benefit from dispatcher assisted CPR.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗

PubMed2003

Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is commonly used to treat patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Arrhythmia recurrence rates in these patients are high, but which patients will receive a therapy and the forms of arrhythmia recurrence (VT or VF) are poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The therapy delivered by the ICD was examined in 449 patients randomized to ICD therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. Events triggering ICD shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) were reviewed for arrhythmia diagnosis, clinical symptoms, activity at the onset of the arrhythmia, and appropriateness and results of therapy. Both shock and ATP therapies were frequent by 2 years, with 68% of patients receiving some therapy or having an arrhythmic death. An appropriate shock was delivered in 53% of patients, and ATP was delivered in 68% of patients who had ATP activated. The first arrhythmia treated in follow-up was diagnosed as VT (63%), VF (13%), supraventricular tachycardia (18%), unknown arrhythmia (3%), or due to ICD malfunction or inappropriate sensing (3%). Acceleration of an arrhythmia by the ICD occurred in 8% of patients who received any therapy. No physical activity consistently preceded arrhythmias, nor did any single clinical factor predict the symptoms of the arrhythmia. CONCLUSION: Delivery of ICD therapy in AVID patients was common, primarily due to VT. Inappropriate ICD therapy occurred frequently. Use of ICD therapy as a surrogate endpoint for death in clinical trials should be avoided.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial.

CONTEXT: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with backup ventricular pacing increases survival in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most currently implanted ICD devices provide dual-chamber pacing therapy. The most common comorbid cause for mortality in this population is congestive heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of dual-chamber pacing compared with backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation but without indications for antibradycardia pacing. DESIGN: The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 506 patients with indications for ICD therapy were enrolled between October 2000 and September 2002 at 37 US centers. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less, no indication for antibradycardia pacemaker therapy, and no persistent atrial arrhythmias. INTERVENTIONS: All patients had an ICD with dual-chamber, rate-responsive pacing capability implanted. Patients were randomly assigned to have the ICDs programmed to ventricular backup pacing at 40/min (VVI-40; n = 256) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing at 70/min (DDDR-70; n = 250). Maximal tolerated medical therapy for left ventricular dysfunction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, was prescribed to all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite end point of time to death or first hospitalization for congestive heart failure. RESULTS: One-year survival free of the composite end point was 83.9% for patients treated with VVI-40 compared with 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.44). The components of the composite end point, mortality of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended in favor of VVI-40 programming. CONCLUSION: For patients with standard indications for ICD therapy, no indication for cardiac pacing, and an LVEF of 40% or less, dual-chamber pacing offers no clinical advantage over ventricular backup pacing and may be detrimental by increasing the combined end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2002

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator utilization based on discharge diagnoses from Medicare and managed care patients.

INTRODUCTION: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become an accepted therapy for patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death. To assess the current utilization of this therapy, we estimated the number of patients at risk of sudden death using an historical claims-based study and compared these results to current ICD usage volumes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Managed care and Medicare databases (claims related to 4.6 million covered U.S. lives during a 12-month period) were analyzed to identify patients who had either a primary or secondary diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular flutter, or cardiac arrest. These patients were further required to have a diagnosis code indicating a previous myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure. Patients who died during the study period or did not have medical insurance were excluded. In the base case scenario, 1,226 patients per million population were identified as potential ICD candidates. Sensitivity analyses reduced that value to a range from 736 to 1,140 ICD candidates per million population. Sensitivity factors considered included acute myocardial infarction, comorbidities, age, secondary ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation diagnosis, and varying degrees of left ventricular dysfunction. These results contrast with an ICD usage rate of 416 per million population in the United States and lower rates in other countries. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that, based on discharge diagnoses, many patients who could benefit from ICDs are not receiving this therapy. Diverse reasons for this underutilization should be addressed to improve access to, and appropriate use of, this therapy.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Effect of surgical revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease and ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo resuscitation from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias often have significant coronary artery disease, and revascularization has been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia and cardiac arrest episodes in this patient population. The magnitude of benefit attributed to revascularization has varied by study, and the use of adjunct implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has not been well-characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry included 3117 patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, of whom 2321 (77%) had documented coronary artery disease and 281 (17%) underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting revascularization procedure after the index event. Patients who underwent a revascularization procedure were younger, had a lower incidence rate of prior myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmia, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, had less congestive heart failure, and were more likely to have had ventricular fibrillation as the presenting arrhythmia. Patients who underwent revascularization had a better survival rate than did those who did not undergo such a procedure after the index event, and adjustment for differing baseline patient covariates did not alter the relative survival rate benefit. Further, ICD implantation offered a similar survival rate advantage to those patients in the AVID registry with coronary artery disease independent of revascularization. CONCLUSION: Coronary revascularization in the AVID registry patients with coronary artery disease effected a survival rate benefit that was not attributable to differences in baseline patient characteristics. The benefit of ICD on patient survival rate was not attenuated by a revascularization procedure.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Prognostic value of baseline electrophysiology studies in patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the value of electrophysiology (EP) testing in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF), ventricular tachycardia (VT) with syncope, or sustained VT in the setting of left ventricular dysfunction. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, EP testing is part of the workup of patients with sustained VT or VF. Recently, some have suggested that EP testing is unnecessary in these patients, many of whom are likely to receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Within a multicenter trial (Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators) designed to evaluate whether drugs or ICD resulted in a better outcome, data were analyzed regarding EP testing. Although this testing was not required, it was performed in >50% of patients. Information regarding the results of EP testing was correlated to baseline clinical characteristics and outcome. RESULTS: Of 572 patients subjected to an EP test, 384 (67%) had inducible sustained VT or VF. Inducible patients were more likely to have coronary artery disease, previous infarction, and VT as their index arrhythmic event. Inducibility of VT or VF did not predict death or recurrent VT or VF. CONCLUSIONS: Information derived from EP testing in this patient population, particularly those with VF, is of limited value and may not be worth the risks and costs of the procedure, particularly in those patients likely to receive an ICD.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Should time from cardiac arrest until call to emergency medical services (EMS) be collected in EMS research?

Because of the difficulty and cost of collecting the time from collapse to placing the 911 call in instances of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and because of the potential noise and bias that might be inherent in such data, a simulation study was conducted to quantitate the impact that such data might have on estimates of the relationship between time from collapse to defibrillation and probability of survival. In the absence of bias, an underestimate of the slope on the order of 20% to 30% might be expected. However, in the presence of bias, the impact on the slope estimate is unpredictable. The most likely bias would tend to cause an overestimate of the slope. It is suggested that unless the time from collapse to placing the 911 call can be obtained accurately and without bias, it is probably not worthwhile to do so.

Emergency Medical Services↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Location of cardiac arrests in the public access defibrillation trial.

BACKGROUND: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial found an overall doubling in the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (CA) survivors when a lay responder team was equipped with an automated external defibrillator (AED), compared with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone. OBJECTIVES: To describe the types of facilities that participated in the trial and to report the incidence of CA and survival in these different types of facilities. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis of PAD Trial data, the physical characteristics of the participating facilities and the numbers of presumed CAs, treatable CAs, and survivors are reported for each category of facilities. RESULTS: There were 625 presumed CAs at 1,260 participating facilities. Just under half (n = 291) of the presumed CAs were classified as treatable CAs. Treatable CAs occurred at a rate of 2.9 per 1,000 person-years of exposure; rates were highest in fitness centers (5.1) and golf courses (4.8) and lowest in office complexes (0.7) and hotels (0.7). Survival from treatable CA was highest in recreational complexes (0.5), public transportation sites (0.4), and fitness centers (0.4) and lowest in office complexes (0.1) and residential facilities (0.0). CONCLUSIONS: During the PAD Trial, the exposure-adjusted rate of treatable CA was highest in fitness centers and golf courses, but the incidence per facility was low to moderate. Survival from treatable cardiac arrest was highest in recreational complexes, public transportation facilities, and fitness centers.

Age Distribution↗