PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6883960

Progress in arrhythmia therapy.

Abstract

Recent developments in classification and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias are reviewed. The advent of portable continuous ambulatory monitoring of electrocardiograms and of invasive catheterization techniques for electrophysiologically testing the heart has facilitated study of mechanisms and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. A number of antiarrhythmic drugs are also in the final phases of clinical testing; some of these agents have unique properties that will affect therapeutic approaches. These recent studies and new techniques have led to a reassessment of the classification schemes for both arrhythmias and antiarrhythmic agents. The clinical importance of arrhythmias is also now better understood. Occasional supraventricular tachycardias in otherwise apparently healthy people are not associated with increased mortality. Sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias, especially in patients with coronary-artery disease, are life-threatening and should be treated immediately and aggressively. Beta-adrenergic antagonists have proven valuable in the prevention of sudden death in patients who have had a myocardial infarction. Clinical trials documenting real advances in reducing mortality caused by electrical instability of the heart have been conducted in patients with recent myocardial infarction but are not yet available for most other patient types.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Rodman, D Benditt. Progress in arrhythmia therapy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6883960/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Mechanisms of death in the CABG Patch trial: a randomized trial of implantable cardiac defibrillator prophylaxis in patients at high risk of death after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

BACKGROUND: The CABG Patch trial compared prophylactic implantable cardiac-defibrillator (ICD) implantation with no antiarrhythmic therapy in coronary bypass surgery patients who had a left ventricular ejection fraction <0.36 and an abnormal signal-averaged ECG. There were 102 deaths among the 446 ICD group patients and 96 deaths among the 454 control group patients, a hazard ratio of 1.07 (P=0.63). The mechanisms of death were classified, and hypotheses were tested about the effects of ICD therapy on arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic cardiac deaths in the CABG Patch Trial and the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT). METHODS AND RESULTS: The 198 deaths in the trial were reviewed by an independent Events Committee and classified by the method of Hinkle and Thaler. Only 54 deaths (27%) occurred out of hospital; 145 deaths (73%) were witnessed. Seventy-nine (82%) of the 96 deaths in the control group and 76 (75%) of the 102 deaths in the ICD group were due to cardiac causes. Cumulative arrhythmic mortality at 42 months was 6.9% in the control group and 4.0% in the ICD group (P=0. 057). Cumulative nonarrhythmic cardiac mortality at 42 months was 12. 4% in the control group and 13.0% in the ICD group (P=0.275). Death due to pump failure was significantly associated with death >1 hour from the onset of symptoms, dyspnea within 7 days of death, and overt heart failure within 7 days of death. CONCLUSIONS: In the CABG Patch Trial, ICD therapy reduced arrhythmic death 45% without significant effect on nonarrhythmic deaths. Because 71% of the deaths were nonarrhythmic, total mortality was not significantly reduced.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents

Navigation in the mega-trials waters: reflections on the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial and the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Study.

Today, cardiology seems to be driven by mega-trials and meta-analyses. Guidelines published by scientific and professional cardiovascular societies, such as the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology, follow the rules of evidence-based medicine. Such evidence is not always sufficiently conclusive to practice clinically helpful medicine. Sometimes, relatively small trials, such as the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial and the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators study, may be taken as guides for current clinical decisions and as inspiration for future investigations. Large mega-trials with a great lack of homogeneity among the recruited patients are less important for clinically helpful medicine than studies enrolling well-defined, high-risk patients. It is probably important to acknowledge that the best possible treatment for many patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias remains obscure. Among these situations are the following: (1) sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients without coronary artery disease; (2) sustained, nonsyncopal VT in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction; (3) post myocardial infarction survivors with an ejection fraction < or = 35%, frequent/complex ventricular arrhythmias, depressed heart rate variability, and inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias during electrophysiologic study. Many studies are being conducted to add light where uncertainty exists, but probably only a few will contribute to the practice of clinically helpful medicine, although some will be used to produce meta-analysis to sustain evidence-based medicine.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents