Effectiveness of amiodarone on ventricular arrhythmias during and after acute myocardial infarction

Sudden Cardiac Death in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Sudden cardiac death in acute coronary syndromes mostly results from complex ventricular arrhythmias. Although the incidence has fallen with contemporary management, they still pose a threat for many patients. Treatment consists of immediate termination by electrical cardioversion and prompt coronary revascularization for relief of ischemia. Beta-blockers administered prophylactically have a protective effect. For recurrent episodes, pharmacologic treatment consists of beta-blockers and amiodarone, or, in nonresponsive patients, lidocaine. Other antiarrhythmic drugs play only a marginal role. Catheter ablation performed in qualified centers can be effective in recurrent episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation triggered by premature ventricular contractions.

Current state of the art for cardiac arrhythmia gene therapy

Cardiac arrhythmias are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Currently available therapeutic options lack sufficient efficacy and safety. Gene therapy has been proposed for treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. This review will discuss the current state of development for arrhythmia gene therapy. So far, all published studies are short-term, proof-of-concept animal studies. Potential replacement of cardiac pacemakers has been shown for combination gene therapy using the HCN2 gene and either the gene for adenylate cyclase, the skeletal muscle isoform of the sodium channel, or a dominant negative mutant of the potassium channel responsible for resting membrane potential. Atrial fibrillation has been prevented by gene transfer of either a dominant negative mutant of a repolarizing potassium channel, a gap junction, or an siRNA directed against caspase 3. Inherited arrhythmia syndromes have been corrected by replacement of the causative genes. Post-infarct ventricular tachycardia has been reduced by gene therapy with the skeletal muscle sodium channel and connexins and eliminated with the dominant negative mutant of the potassium channel responsible for resting membrane potential. These ideas show considerable promise. Long-term efficacy and safety studies are required to see if they can become viable therapies.

Gene Therapy for Post-infarction Ventricular Tachycardia

Cardiac arrhythmias are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. In particular, cardiac arrest or sudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death in these countries. Death generally results from a ventricular tachyarrhythmia, and pathology data have shown that cardiac arrest victims very frequently have evidence of coronary atherosclerosis with either acute ischemia or healed myocardial infarction. In this work, we describe an animal model that reproducibly has inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias after healing of a myocardial infarction scar and a gene delivery method that allows gene transfer to the scar and surrounding myocardial tissues. Use of the method allows gene delivery to the arrhythmia model for testing of hypotheses related to ventricular tachyarrhythmia mechanisms and for efficacy testing of proposed gene therapies. To date, all work in this area has been preclinical, but it is our hope that continued development in this area will 1 day allow translation of this method into clinical practice.

Amiodarone versus other pharmacological interventions for prevention of sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.

Pharmacology of antiarrhythmic drugs in elderly patients

Bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias are common in elderly patients as a result of aging and acquired cardiac disease. Antiarrhythmic drugs are effective in elderly patients for the management of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias; however, dosing of drugs must be performed with care because of age-related changes in drug pharmacokinetics, the presence of concomitant disease, and frequent drug-drug interactions. Despite the large number of antiarrhythmic drugs having different electrophysiologic actions, as described in this article, only the β-blockers have been shown to be effective in reducing mortality and to lack proarrhythmic actions.

Examining the safety of amiodarone

INTRODUCTION

Amiodarone is the most widely used antiarrhythmic agent, with demonstrated effectiveness against all the spectrum of cardiac tachyarrhythmias. The risk of adverse effects acts as a limiting factor to its utilization especially in the long term. This article systematically reviews the published evidence on amiodarone versus placebo to examine its safety as an antiarrhythmic drug.

AREAS COVERED

Authors collected data on adverse effects reported in 49 randomized placebo-controlled trials with amiodarone. Adverse effects were classified according to the organ/system involved. Pooled estimates of the number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) versus placebo were calculated.

EXPERT OPINION

Amiodarone is effective for both the acute conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) (11 trials, NNT = 4 at 24 h; p = 0.003) and the prevention of postoperative AF (18 trials, NNT = 8; p < 0.001), although with an increased risk of bradycardia, hypotension, nausea or phlebitis (pooled NNH = 4; p < 0.001). Amiodarone administration for the maintenance of sinus rhythm has a favorable net clinical benefit (pooled NNT = 3; p < 0.001 versus pooled NNH for either thyroid toxicity, gastrointestinal discomfort, skin toxicity or eye toxicity = 11; p < 0.001). Treatment with amiodarone for the prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death has less favorable net clinical benefit (15 trials, NNT = 38; p < 0.001 versus NNH for either thyroid toxicity, hepatic toxicity, pulmonary toxicity or bradycardia = 14; p < 0.001). Amiodarone treatment in this setting should be used in only selected cases.

Amiodarone use after acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure and/or left ventricular dysfunction may be associated with excess mortality

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess the association of amiodarone use with mortality during consecutive periods in patients with post-acute myocardial infarction with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and/or HF treated with a contemporary medical regimen.

METHODS

This study used data from VALIANT, a randomized comparison of valsartan, captopril, or both in patients with acute myocardial infarction with HF and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We compared baseline characteristics of 825 patients treated with amiodarone at randomization with 13,875 patients not treated with amiodarone. Using Cox models, we examined the association of amiodarone use with subsequent mortality during consecutive periods after randomization (days 1-16, 17-45, 46-198, and 199-1096).

RESULTS

Patients treated with amiodarone were older, had higher Killip class, and were more likely to have a history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Adjusting for baseline predictors of mortality, we found that amiodarone use was associated with a significant increase in mortality during 3 of the 4 periods: hazard ratio 1.5, 95% CI (1.1-2.0), P = .02, for days 1 to 16; 2.1 (1.5-2.9), P < .001, for days 17 to 45; 1.1 (0.83-1.46), P = .51, for days 46 to 198; and 1.4 (1.2-1.6), P < .001, for days 199 to 1096.

CONCLUSION

In this study, amiodarone use was associated with excess early and late all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. These observational findings are in contrast to earlier randomized trials of amiodarone and need to be validated prospectively.

Cardiovascular drug therapy in the elderly

Pharmacokinetic considerations in the elderly include absorption, bioavailablility, drug distribution, half-life, drug metabolism, and drug excretion. There are numerous physiologic changes with aging that affect pharmacodynamics with alterations in end-organ responsiveness. This article discusses use of cardiovascular drugs in the elderly including digoxin, diuretics, beta-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-II receptor blockers, nitrates, calcium channel blockers, alpha-adrenergic blockers, antiarrhythmic drugs, lipid-lowering drugs, and anticoagulants. This article also discusses the adverse effects of cardiovascular drugs in the elderly, medications best to avoid in the elderly, and the prudent use of medications in the elderly.

Device based treatment of heart failure

As the population ages and survival from ischaemic heart disease improves, the incidence and prevalence of congestive cardiac failure has increased dramatically. Medical treatments including ACE inhibitors, beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have improved the outlook for most patients. However, despite optimal medical treatment there is a significant group of patients who continue to suffer poor morbidity and mortality. Device based treatment consisting of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices offer new modes of treatment to patients with symptomatic heart failure despite optimal medical therapy. ICDs have been shown to reduce mortality in patients with severe heart failure while CRT leads to an improvement in functional class, quality of life scores, physiological measures such as peak Vo(2), and reduce hospitalisations. Combination devices, which provide both ICD and CRT functions, have now been seen to provide synergistic benefits in selected patients.

Can Amiodarone Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with Hemodynamically Tolerated Sustained Ventricular Tachycardia and Coronary Artery Disease?

One of the most important challenges in today's cardiology is prevention of sudden cardiac death in high risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Sustained hemodynamically tolerated ventricular tachycardia (HTVT) comprises up to 30% of all cases of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in patients with CAD. While there is a consensus on treatment of hemodynamically unstable sustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with CAD, some controversies regarding the proper treatment of HTVT exist. We re-examined existing clinical evidence, controversies and current guidelines on the treatment of HTVT in patients with CAD and demonstrated that compared to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, amiodarone is not an acceptable therapeutic option in patients with ischemic heart disease who suffer from HTVT.

Diminishing proportional risk of sudden death with advancing age: implications for prevention of sudden death

BACKGROUND

Advances in primary and secondary prevention of sudden death have led to a wide array of potentially beneficial therapies. Identification of patients most likely to benefit would be of use when considering costly interventions such as an implantable defibrillator. We sought to determine the effect of advancing age on the mode of death in the Amiodarone Trialists Metanalysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 6252; age, 61.2+/-10.5 years; 83% men) were included in an analysis of predictors of sudden death (SD) and all-cause death (ACD), based on baseline variables at enrollment. Patients were divided into 5 age groups: < or =50 years, 51 to 60 years, 61 to 70 years, 71 to 80 years, and >80 years. During a mean of 16.8+/-10.3 months of follow-up, there were 1023 deaths, with an annual overall mortality rate of 11.7%. Both sudden death and nonsudden death rates increased with age, although the increase of nonsudden death with age was more dramatic. The overall proportion of death that was sudden (SD/ACD ratio) was 0.41, falling from 0.51 before age 50 years to 0.26 after age 80 years (P =.002 for trend). The SD/ACD ratio was not affected by sex, New York Heart Association Class, or left ventricular ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of sudden death increases with age, the proportion of death that is sudden diminishes markedly. This finding may influence the yield of interventions targeted at prevention of sudden death.

Meta-analysis of antiarrhythmic drug trials

During the past 15 years, the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs has been investigated for reducing premature death in patients at high risk of arrhythmia. Whereas the benefits of beta-blocker therapy are well established, a reduction in mortality with other antiarrhythmic drugs remains unproved and in some cases, there is evidence of increased mortality with class I and some class III agents. A limitation of individual clinical trials is inadequate sample size to detect significant differences between interventions. Meta-analysis, by combining results from multiple clinical trials, provides a technique to overcome sample size limitations and assess the benefits and limitations of an intervention. Thirteen randomized clinical trials evaluated the role of prophylactic amiodarone in patients at risk of death from cardiac arrhythmias. Whereas 3 of these studies reported a reduction in mortality, several others revealed no benefits of amiodarone. Because neither trial was designed to detect reductions in total mortality, it remained unclear whether the beneficial effect of amiodarone on arrhythmic death and resuscitated ventricular fibrillation translated into a beneficial effect on total mortality. To address this, a meta-analysis was performed from the 13 trials of amiodarone in patients after an acute myocardial infarction or with congestive heart failure. The results showed a significant reduction in mortality and in arrhythmic death with amiodarone.

Amiodarone and "primary" prevention of sudden death: critical review of a decade of clinical trials

Several trials have evaluated the role of amiodarone in decreasing mortality in patients at high risk of developing sudden death. Current evidence does not support the prophylactic use of amiodarone in myocardial infarction (MI) survivors with a depressed left ventricular function and/or frequent or complex ventricular ectopy. Some postinfarction trials (e.g., the Spanish Study of Sudden Death [SSSD]) found mortality rates in controls much lower than the expected figures. Other postinfarction trials--the European Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial (CAMIAT)--despite observing a 2-year mortality rate of about 15% as expected, could not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality. Amiodarone decreases the risk of sudden death in postinfarction patients by about 35%. In patients with a history of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, evidence is not sufficiently strong to use amiodarone for prevention of sudden death. The 2 major trials on such patients, Group for the Study of Survival in Heart Failure in Argentina (Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina or GESICA) and the Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure (STAT-CHF), arrived at conflicting results. Meta-analyses have been performed to overcome the small sample size of these trials, with the aim of assessing the benefit of amiodarone on total mortality. Differences among the recruited populations make it difficult to extract clinically applicable conclusions from these overviews. Even accepting that amiodarone might decrease total mortality by 10%, it is difficult to identify the patients for whom such a beneficial effect applies. A practical consequence of amiodarone trials is that this drug can be used rather safely in patients with left ventricular dysfunction of any etiology as, in contrast to some class I agents, it does not increase mortality. Therefore, amiodarone is the drug of choice when antiarrhythmic drug treatment is indicated in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Intravenous amiodarone for ventricular arrhythmias: overview and clinical use

Numerous pharmacological agents with varying cellular electrophysiological effects are available to treat cardiac arrhythmias. Amiodarone is predominantly a Vaughan Williams Class III agent, but also possesses electrophysiological characteristics of the other three Vaughan Williams classes (Class I and IV and minor Class II effects). Amiodarone's primary mechanism is to prolong the cardiac action potential and repolarization time leading to an increased refractory period and reduced membrane excitability. The efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (IV) amiodarone for acute treatment of recurrent and refractory ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation has been demonstrated in clinical trials. The ARREST trial, a randomized trial comparing IV amiodarone to placebo, found a significant improvement in the proportion of patients surviving to the emergency department following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in amiodarone-treated patients. Intravenous amiodarone is an effective anti-arrhythmic agent for the acute treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and represents an important treatment option for emergency anti-arrhythmic therapy for patients suffering from cardiac arrest.

Quantitative overview of randomized trials of amiodarone to prevent sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Some randomized clinical trials of amiodarone therapy to prevent sudden cardiac death have had positive results and others have had negative results, but all were relatively small. This meta-analysis aimed to pool all trials to assess the effect of amiodarone on mortality and the impact of differences in patient population and study design on trial outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifteen randomized trials were identified, and outcome measures were combined by use of a random effects model. The effect of patient population and study design on total mortality was assessed by use of a hierarchical Bayes model. Amiodarone reduced total mortality by 19% (confidence limits, 6% to 31%; P<.01), with somewhat greater reductions in cardiac mortality (23%, P<.001) and sudden death (30%, P<.001). Mortality reductions were similar in trials enrolling patients after myocardial infarction (21%), with left ventricular dysfunction (22%), and after cardiac arrest (25%). There was a trend toward greater risk reduction in trials requiring evidence of ventricular ectopy (25%) than in the remaining trials (10%). The trials using placebo controls had considerably less risk reduction (10%) than trials with active controls (27%) or usual care controls (42%, posterior odds <0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone reduced total mortality by 10% to 19% in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. Amiodarone reduced risk similarly in patients after myocardial infarction, with heart failure, or with clinically evident arrhythmia. The apparent inconsistencies among results of randomized trials appear to be due to small sample sizes and the type of control group used, not the type of patient enrolled.

The top ten fallacies of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) continues to remain a subject of controversy. This is true despite a wealth of epidemiologic and basic/clinical laboratory findings that have accumulated during the past 2 decades. However, these data not only generate the impetus to conduct further research, but also provide compelling arguments against continued adherence to time honored precepts about NSVT that evolved since the inception of the "PVC Hypothesis," although never substantiated by rigorous scientific inquiry. This paper discusses the "top ten" fallacies of NSVT and details the data that support abandonment of them.

Proarrhythmia with class III antiarrhythmic drugs: types, risks, and management

The nature of the proarrhythmic reactions induced by antiarrhythmic drugs is linked to the electrophysiologic effects of these agents. Torsades de pointes is the classic form of proarrhythmia observed during therapy with any drug that prolongs repolarization, for example, the class III agents. Its precise electrophysiologic mechanism is not fully elucidated, although the arrhythmia is generally considered to be due either to early afterdepolarization in the context of prolonged cardiac repolarization or to an increase in spatial or temporal dispersion of repolarization. Among the class III drugs the proarrhythmic risk appears to be lowest for amiodarone, probably due to its complex electrophysiologic profile that may create significant myocardial electrical homogeneity. In the case of d,l-sotalol, the incidence of torsades de pointes increases with dose and the baseline values of the QT interval. Where d-sotalol and other pure class III agents might fall into the varying spectrum of proarrhythmic potential remains unclear. That d-sotalol has been found to increase mortality in postinfarction patients with ventricular dysfunction (the Survival With Oral d-Sotalol [SWORD] trial) is a matter of considerable concern. It raises the possibility that such a phenomenon may be a common property of most, if not all, pure class III compounds. Accordingly, care must be taken to minimize the likelihood of proarrhythmia; in particular, therapy with a class III agent should only be initiated in the presence of a defined indication established on the basis of clinical trials. When class III antiarrhythmic drug-induced proarrhythmia occurs, immediate cessation of therapy with the responsible agent and correction of predisposing factors, such as electrolyte disorders or bradycardia, is mandatory. Intravenous administration of high-dose magnesium sulfate has been demonstrated to be effective in terminating and preventing new episodes of torsades de pointes. Temporary pacing may be necessary.

Adverse effects of low dose amiodarone: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the odds of experiencing adverse effects with low dose amiodarone therapy compared with placebo.

BACKGROUND

An estimate of the likelihood of experiencing amiodarone-related adverse effects with exposure to low daily doses of the drug is lacking in the published reports, and little information is available on adverse effect event rates in control groups not receiving the drug.

METHODS

Data from four published trials involving 1,465 patients were included in a meta-analysis design. The criteria for inclusion were 1) double-blind, placebo-controlled design; 2) absence of a crossover design between patient groups; 3) mean follow-up of at least 12 months; 4) maintenance amiodarone dose < or = 400 mg/day; and 5) presence of an explicit description of adverse effects. Data were pooled after testing for homogeneity of treatment effects across trials, and summary odds ratios were calculated by the Peto-modified Mantel-Haenszel method for each adverse effect.

RESULTS

The mean amiodarone dose per day ranged from 152 to 330 mg; 738 patients were randomized to receive amiodarone and 727 placebo. Exposure to amiodarone in this dose range, for a minimal duration of 12 months, resulted in odds similar to those of placebo for hepatic and gastrointestinal adverse effects, but in significantly higher odds than those of placebo (p < 0.05) for experiencing thyroid (odds ratio [OR] 4.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0 to 8.7), neurologic (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.7), skin (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 6.2), ocular (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 9.6) and bradycardic (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 4.3) adverse effects. A trend toward increased odds of pulmonary toxicity was noted (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.3), but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07). The unadjusted total incidence of drug discontinuation was 22.9% in the amiodarone group and 15.4% in the placebo group. The odds of discontinuing the drug in the amiodarone group was approximately 1.5 times that of the placebo group (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9) (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, there is a higher likelihood of experiencing several amiodarone-related adverse effects with exposure to low daily doses of the drug. Thus, although low dose amiodarone may be well tolerated, it is not free of adverse effects.

Proarrhythmia with class III antiarrhythmic drugs: definition, electrophysiologic mechanisms, incidence, predisposing factors, and clinical implications

Antiarrhythmic drugs can and do induce unexpected and sometimes fatal reactions by either producing new symptomatic arrhythmias or by aggravating existing arrhythmias. The definition of proarrhythmia has changed since controlled clinical studies showed a dichotomy between arrhythmia suppression and mortality. The nature of proarrhythmic reactions is linked to the electrophysiologic effects of various antiarrhythmic drugs. Whereas Class I agents without accompanying effects on repolarization generally produce ventricular tachycardia (often incessant) or fibrillation, Class III agents typically produce torsades de pointes that may deteriorate into ventricular fibrillation. The precise mechanism of torsades de pointes is not fully elucidated, although early after-depolarization and increases in spatial or temporal dispersion of repolarization are likely possibilities. Proarrhythmic risk is lowest for amiodarone and is probably related to the drug's complex electrophysiologic profile. The incidence of torsades with sotalol increases with dose and the baseline values of the QT interval; the incidence with d-sotalol and other pure Class III agents remains unclear. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies to evaluate this are under way. The fact that d-sotalol increases mortality in postinfarction patients suggests that it may possibly be a common property of most, if not all, pure Class III compounds. The ongoing clinical trials with various Class III agents are likely to provide the critical information on this important therapeutic issue.

Treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in older adults

OBJECTIVE

To review the prognosis and management of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in persons with and without heart disease with emphasis on older adults.

DATA SOURCES

A computer-assisted search of the English language literature (MEDLINE database) followed by a manual search of the bibliographies of pertinent articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies on the prognosis and management of VA in persons with and without heart disease were screened for review. Studies in older people and recent studies were emphasized.

DATA EXTRACTION

Pertinent data were extracted from the reviewed articles. Emphasis was on studies involving the older persons. Relevant articles were reviewed in depth.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Available data about the prognosis and management of VA in persons with and without heart disease, with emphasis on studies involving older people, were summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

VA in older persons without heart disease should not be treated with antiarrhythmic drugs. Class I antiarrhythmic drugs should not be used to treat VA in older persons with heart disease. Beta blockers should be used to treat complex VA in older persons with ischemic or nonischemic heart disease if there are no contraindications to beta blocker therapy. The use of amiodarone in treating complex VA should be reserved for life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias in older persons who cannot tolerate or who do not respond to beta blockers. VA associated with congestive heart failure should be treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. If older patients have life-threatening recurrent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation resistant to antiarrhythmic drugs, invasive intervention should be performed. The automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is recommended in older patients who have medically refractory sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation.

Treatment of ventricular arrhythmias after recovery from myocardial infarction

Demonstrated associations between postmyocardial infarction ventricular arrhythmias and a higher subsequent risk of both sudden and all-cause mortality have prompted a search for effective and safe treatment modalities. Recently completed clinical trials have provided a rationale for treatment recommendations in some specific settings. Beta-blocking therapy is recommended for postinfarction patients with frequent or complex ventricular premature beats. In contrast, calcium antagonist therapy is not helpful in these cases, and Class I antiarrhythmic therapy is actually harmful. Early indications of benefit from Class III antiarrhythmic therapies, particularly amiodarone, are under evaluation in large trials. Patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring late after myocardial infarction require therapy. Viable therapeutic methods include individualized antiarrhythmic therapy selected by the noninvasive approach, individualized antiarrhythmic therapy selected by the invasive approach, empiric amiodarone therapy, transcatheter or surgical ablative therapy (for VT), and use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Clinical trial data have yet to determine which of these approaches is most effective under which circumstances. Postinfarction patients with nonsustained VT are the focus of several ongoing treatment trials. Early data suggest that risks requiring specific therapy are reached only by those patients who also have significant left ventricular dysfunction. The presence of inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia at an electrophysiologic study may further risk stratify such patients. High-risk patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, left ventricular dysfunction, and inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia should participate in ongoing clinical trials. In the absence of this opportunity, intensive treatment should be considered.

Comparison of the effects of amiodarone versus metoprolol on the frequency of ventricular arrhythmias and on mortality after acute myocardial infarction. SSSD Investigators. Spanish Study on Sudden Death

A randomized trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of amiodarone versus metoprolol or no antiarrhythmic treatment to suppress asymptomatic ectopic activity and improve survival in patients who have had myocardial infarction with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 20 to 45% and > or = 3 ventricular premature complexes per hour (pairs or runs). Patients (n = 368) were randomly assigned to receive amiodarone 200 mg/day (n = 115) 10 to 60 days after the acute episode, and metoprolol 100 to 200 mg/day (n = 130) or no antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 123). After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, mortality in the amiodarone-treated patients (3.5 +/- 2% SEM) did not differ significantly from that of untreated control subjects (7.7 +/- 2.5%, p = 0.19), but was lower than that in the metoprolol group (15.4 +/- 3.5%, p = 0.006). Patients treated with metoprolol had twice the mortality seen in control subjects, even though the differences were not statistically significant. Holter studies performed at 1, 6 and 12 months showed that both amiodarone and metoprolol were equally effective in reducing heart rate, whereas only amiodarone significantly reduced ectopic activity (p < 0.0001). Thus, long-term treatment with amiodarone was clearly safe in patients with an ejection fraction of 20 to 45%, was effective in suppressing arrhythmias, and was associated with a lower mortality than metoprolol; corroboration is required in a larger trial.

Empiric use of amiodarone and sotalol

Several studies have demonstrated that class I antiarrhythmic drugs do not reduce, and may increase, sudden cardiac death mortality and total cardiac mortality. Because of this, alternative drug choices for antiarrhythmic therapy are necessary. Amiodarone has been demonstrated to be an important and effective antiarrhythmic agent, as has sotalol. The purpose of this article is to review the various indications and possible benefits of the empiric use of these 2 antiarrhythmic agents.

Amiodarone and post-MI patients

Amiodarone is a viable drug for preventing sudden cardiac death, particularly during the first year after MI. If larger trials confirm the aforementioned prospective trials of Ceremuzynski et al, Cairns et al, and the BASIS trial, the efficacy of amiodarone would outweigh the risk of its side effects during the first year after MI. Based on the long-term observation from the BASIS trial, the duration of amiodarone therapy need not be more than 1 year--which, as we have learned, is when these post-MI patients would benefit most from the drug. It is also likely that the effects of amiodarone would complement those of aspirin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. The SAVE, CONSENSUS II, and SOLVD trials demonstrated that captopril and enalapril did not reduce the mortality rate during the first year after MI, nor did they reduce the sudden cardiac death rate. Their beneficial effects became evident only during the second year and thereafter. Unlike other antiarrhythmic agents of various classes, amiodarone possesses antiarrhythmic properties but does not exert deleterious effects on ventricular function. More studies are needed to determine if the benefit of amiodarone could be enhanced by combination therapy (eg, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, or beta-blockers). Whether amiodarone will provide the same protection for patients who have poor left ventricular function or congestive heart failure is not known. The European and VA cooperative studies should help answer this question. If it turns out that amiodarone is beneficial, one must then determine whether higher doses of the drug will offer more protection, and, if so, if that greater protection would be offset by increased toxicity. How much amiodarone should be given to offer the most protection with the least risk? Another intriguing research question is this: If we treat patients with amiodarone for more than 1 year, would the drug continue to improve the mortality rate in subsequent years? Other studies are needed in patients at very high risk of sudden cardiac death (ie, those who have a low ejection fraction and high-density VPDs). A study comparing amiodarone and sotalol in high-risk patients for sudden cardiac death is also needed. These clinical studies should be carried out with basic science research investigating the actions of amiodarone at the molecular and cellular level in order to give us a better understanding of how the drug works.

Clinical experience in protecting the failing heart

Several large, carefully randomized studies of pharmaceutical agents in the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and left ventricular dysfunction have demonstrated conclusively that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality among patients with CHF, as well as the number of hospitalizations for heart failure, myocardial infarction (MI), and angina. ACE inhibitors also have been shown to prevent the development of heart failure in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors and the beta agonists have been shown to increase mortality with no beneficial effect on morbidity. The role of digitalis remains controversial. On the one hand, the limited data available suggest that digoxin prevents clinical deterioration in patients with heart failure, even in the presence of sinus rhythm. On the other hand, when administered after MI, digoxin has been associated with increased mortality. Such conclusions are unreliable, however, since it is impossible to adjust statistically for the fact that digoxin is used in sicker patients. This question will be addressed in a large randomized study currently being conducted by the Digitalis Investigation Group. Pharmacologic approaches to the reduction of sudden death currently being explored include amiodarone, oral magnesium supplements, and beta blockers. According to the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial and other studies, the class I antiarrhythmic agents appear unpromising or even harmful. The calcium channel blockers also appear to be contraindicated as routine therapy for CHF.

Cardiac risk of speed traps

Twenty-two patients with stable cardiac disease drove into a radar trap while having an ambulatory electrocardiogram. All patients reported cardiac symptoms, heart rate increases, and appearance of repetitive ventricular arrhythmias. Myocardial ischemia was observed in some patients. Being caught while car speeding under the stresses of daily life may induce potentially dangerous cardiac effects. The data confirm the effects of stress and adrenergic tone on ventricular arrhythmias.

Amiodarone. An overview of its pharmacological properties, and review of its therapeutic use in cardiac arrhythmias

Amiodarone, originally developed over 20 years ago, is a potent antiarrhythmic drug with the actions of all antiarrhythmic drug classes. It has been successfully used in the treatment of symptomatic and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and symptomatic supraventricular arrhythmias. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction amiodarone does not usually produce any clinically significant cardiodepression and the drug has relatively high antiarrhythmic efficacy. Preliminary studies indicate that amiodarone may have a beneficial effect on mortality and survival in certain groups of patients with ventricular arrhythmias, an action probably related to both its antiarrhythmic and antifibrillatory effects. The adverse effect profile of amiodarone is diverse, involving the cardiac, thyroid, pulmonary, hepatic, gastrointestinal, ocular, neurological and dermatological systems. Interstitial pneumonitis and hepatitis are potentially fatal, but the vast majority of adverse events are less serious, and some may be dose dependent. Pretreatment monitoring, regular assessments and the use of minimum effective doses are, therefore, necessary. Thus, with appropriate monitoring to control its well recognised adverse effects amiodarone has an important place as an effective 'broad spectrum' antiarrhythmic drug which has, so far, been used when other treatments have proved ineffective. More recent preliminary data also suggest that it may also have a beneficial effect in the prevention of sudden death in some patients.

Post-myocardial infarction mortality in patients with ventricular premature depolarizations. Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Among survivors of acute myocardial infarction, frequent and repetitive ventricular premature depolarizations (VPDs) detected on ambulatory monitoring contribute independently to the risk of all-cause mortality and sudden death. Apart from the beta-blockers, no antiarrhythmic drug has been reliably demonstrated to reduce mortality among patients with VPDs. A pilot study was undertaken to gather data to aid in the design of a multicenter trial of amiodarone for the reduction of mortality from cardiac arrhythmias in such patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients with acute myocardial infarction within the previous 6-30 days and 10 or more VPDs/hr or one or more runs of ventricular tachycardia on 24-hour electrocardiographic recording were randomized in a double-blind fashion in a 2:1 amiodarone-to-placebo ratio. The loading dose was 10 mg/kg/day for 3 weeks. The maintenance dose was 300-400 mg/day with reductions at 4-month intervals in response to VPD suppression, excessive plasma levels, or toxicity. VPD suppression at 1 week and 2 weeks was 63% and 85%, respectively, on amiodarone and 17% and 27%, respectively, on placebo. Apart from thyroid-stimulating hormone elevation and skin reactions, no side effects occurred more frequently with amiodarone. The study drug was stopped for side effects or noncompliance in 35% of amiodarone patients and 34% of placebo patients. Patients were followed for a maximum of 2 years (mean, 20 months). Arrhythmic death or resuscitated ventricular fibrillation occurred in two of 48 amiodarone patients (6%) and four of 29 placebo patients (14%), whereas the rates of all-cause mortality were five of 48 (10%) and six of 29 (21%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Amiodarone, in moderate loading and maintenance dosages with adjustments in response to plasma levels, VPD suppression, and side effects, results in effective VPD suppression and acceptable levels of toxicity.

The role of the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) in the treatment of medically refractory ventricular arrhythmias

After 6 years of widespread clinical use, the role of the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) is well defined in some circumstances and less well defined in others. In the next year, the second generation of this device will become available, incorporating antitachycardia pacing algorithms and programmable delivered-energy capabilities into the basic defibrillator system. As a prelude to this development, this article addresses the current status and future role of the AICD in the overall therapeutic armamentarium for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia and presentation of sudden death.

Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

In the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial, designed to test the hypothesis that suppression of ventricular ectopy after a myocardial infarction reduces the incidence of sudden death, patients in whom ventricular ectopy could be suppressed with encainide, flecainide, or moricizine were randomly assigned to receive either active drug or placebo. The use of encainide and flecainide was discontinued because of excess mortality. We examined the mortality and morbidity after randomization to encainide or flecainide or their respective placebo.

RESULTS

Of 1498 patients, 857 were assigned to receive encainide or its placebo (432 to active drug and 425 to placebo) and 641 were assigned to receive flecainide or its placebo (323 to active drug and 318 to placebo). After a mean follow-up of 10 months, 89 patients had died: 59 of arrhythmia (43 receiving drug vs. 16 receiving placebo; P = 0.0004), 22 of nonarrhythmic cardiac causes (17 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo; P = 0.01), and 8 of noncardiac causes (3 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo). Almost all cardiac deaths not due to arrhythmia were attributed to acute myocardial infarction with shock (11 patients receiving drug and 3 receiving placebo) or to chronic congestive heart failure (4 receiving drug and 2 receiving placebo). There were no differences between the patients receiving active drug and those receiving placebo in the incidence of nonlethal disqualifying ventricular tachycardia, proarrhythmia, syncope, need for a permanent pacemaker, congestive heart failure, recurrent myocardial infarction, angina, or need for coronary-artery bypass grafting or angioplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an excess of deaths due to arrhythmia and deaths due to shock after acute recurrent myocardial infarction in patients treated with encainide or flecainide. Nonlethal events, however, were equally distributed between the active-drug and placebo groups. The mechanisms underlying the excess mortality during treatment with encainide or flecainide remain unknown.

Intravenous amiodarone in acute anterior myocardial infarction: a controlled study

A randomized, single-blind controlled study intended to assess the potential benefits of intravenous amiodarone in anterior myocardial infarction is presented. Three hundred nineteen patients entered the study, 159 received amiodarone infusion, and 160 received glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) infusion. Basal characteristics were similar in the two experimental groups, who were randomized on a consecutive basis. Exclusion criteria were shock or pulmonary edema, hypotension, inferoposterior infarction, bradycardia, antrioventricular block, severe diabetes, and other major diseases. Patients aged 27 to 70 years, with a Q-wave anterior infarction, initiated 12-40 hours earlier at the time of admission, entered the trial. Other entry criteria were heart rate higher than 80 beats/min and systolic blood pressure higher than 100 mmHg. Amiodarone was administered in saline infusion 10-20 mg/kg, within 4 to 10 hours, through a central vein. GIK infusion consisted of 150-300 g of glucose, 25-50 IU of insulin, and 80-120 mEq of KCl in 1000 cc of water at a rate of 1.5-2.0 ml/g/hour. Both groups received digitalis, nitrates, sedatives, and diuretics as needed. Although individually the major endpoints of death, reinfarction, and sustained supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias did not differ significantly, each was less in the amiodarone group than in the control, and the sum of all adverse events was significantly lower for the amiodarone patients (p less than 001). Heart failure and conduction disturbances were not different in the two groups. This study shows that amiodarone, with its vasodilating and antiarrhythmic properties, may be beneficial in acute anterior infarction, but further studies on larger populations will be necessary in order to show a reduction of mortality rate.