PubMed · 13589300
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R M WALKER. 1958. General surgery.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13589300/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Controlled trials for secondary prevention of sudden death--Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID), Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), and Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH)--have been published and subanalyses of them provide useful clinical information on the outcome during the follow-up of this population. RECENT FINDINGS: Results from a meta-analysis showed a significant risk reduction (RR) of 25 to 27% of total mortality (P < 0.001) and 50 to 52% of arrhythmic death (P < 0.001). Compared with amiodarone, patients treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in AVID had a maximal benefit in survival when the ejection fraction (EF) was between 20 and 34%. In CIDS, the group of higher risk (older than 70 years, EF less than 3.5%, and New York Heart Association class III-IV) presented a 50% RR of mortality. It has been demonstrated that the imbalance in beta-blocker use cannot explain the better survival in the ICD patients. After 3 years the recurrence of arrhythmia was 64% in the ICD group of the AVID trial. Patients enrolled after an episode of ventricular tachycardia were more likely to have appropriate therapy during follow-up. Older age, lower blood pressure, history of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and prior pacemaker were parameters used for high-risk stratification. Conversely, inducibility of ventricular tachyarrhythmias on electrophysiology did not predict death. SUMMARY: Patients with ICD after ventricular tachyarrhythmias have a 28% RR in total mortality. Individuals with EF between 20 to 34% received the highest benefit with ICD therapy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy for atrial fibrillation is a key step in the treatment of this disorder. Much controversy remains as to the risks and benefits of initiating therapy as an inpatient versus an outpatient. OBJECTIVE: To explore the various issues of debate and to determine the importance and validity of these various issues when it comes to the evaluation of patients for in- versus out-of-hospital initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy for atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A MEDLINE search of English language journal articles since 1966 and a hand search of bibliographies included in pertinent retrieved articles was undertaken. Articles used included review articles, retrospective studies, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: The literature is full of articles for and against outpatient initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy. One side feels that the risks of antiarrhythmic therapy initiation are serious enough in all patients and easy enough to reverse or ameliorate if the patient is in the safety of the monitored hospital setting. The other side argues that these complications are infrequent enough except in certain commonly identifiable patients, that not all need hospitalization during antiarrhythmic initiation. The issues at the heart of the dispute include: the presence or absence of underlying heart disease; the period of monitoring after initiation of therapy; the choice of antiarrhythmic agent used; and even the seriousness and prevalence of the arrhythmia which can be induced. CONCLUSIONS: The issue of in versus out-of-hospital initiation of antiarrhythmic therapy for atrial fibrillation remains a widely disputed topic. Many factors come under consideration when this topic is studied. At present, we recommend that patients with significant structural heart disease, conduction disease, and/or QT prolongation be strongly considered for in-hospital initiation of antiarrhythmic medications. Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the magnitude of the difference of initiating antiarrhythmic therapy as an inpatient versus as an outpatient.