Does amiodarone reduce sudden death and cardiac mortality after myocardial infarction? The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT)

Stress, the autonomic nervous system, and sudden death

The existence of an important relationship between stress, the autonomic nervous system, and sudden cardiac death (SCD) has been long recognized. In the present essay we review the large number of conditions, acting at individual or at population level, that have been causally associated to SCD and discuss the mechanistic and translational value of the studies exploring such associations. These conditions include external stressors (earthquakes, wars) and internal stressors (anger, fear, loss of a loved one) and emotions of even opposite sign. Most situations confirm the time-honored view that increases in sympathetic activity are proarrhythmic whereas increases in vagal activity are protective; however, we will also show and discuss a condition in which the culprit appears to be the excess of vagal activity. The physiologic rationale underlying the most typical situations is on one hand the profibrillatory effect of the increase in the heterogeneity of repolarization secondary to the release of norepinephrine, and on the other the combined effect of acetylcholine to lower heart rate and to antagonize the cardiac effects of norepinephrine at ventricular level. An interesting facet of this potentially lethal relationship is that the elements involved are by no means always exceptional, and they can actually represent part of our everyday life.

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.

Indications for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)

Since the first clinical use of implantable defibrillator in human, the technology and the function of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) have been much improved and now, ICD can be implanted within the chest wall. ICD is the most reliable therapy to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with documented VT/VF and the efficacy is most clear in patients with depressed heart function. It is now extended as a tool of the primary prevention of SCD in high risk patients after myocardial infarction. However, such beneficial effect is not applicable to DCM though patients might have depressed heart function. ICD is not free from procedure- or device-related problems which need to be resolved. From unknown causes, VT/VF might recur in an incessant form and an emergency admission is needed. Therefore, even during ICD therapy, patients often require antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation.

A method for heart rate-corrected estimation of baroreflex sensitivity

OBJECTIVE

The relationship between the prevailing heart rate (HR) and the baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) is described in the present study together with a method for individual HR-corrected estimations of BRS.

DESIGN

HR and BRS, determined with the sequence method, were measured in ten young healthy subjects during rest, stress, standing and bicycle exercise, i.e. at a wide range of HRs.

RESULTS

BRS decreased exponentially with increasing HR. The relationship between the natural logarithm of BRS and HR was linear in each individual and could be described by the equation of a straight line. The equation describing the individual BRS-HR relationship could be derived either from BRS and HR measured during steady-state conditions or from the slope and average HR of the individual sequences occurring throughout the experimental protocol. The latter method was preferable since it did not require recordings during steady-state conditions. In order to eliminate the influence of differences in HR on BRS when comparing BRS between subjects, the equation describing the individual BRS-HR relationship was used to calculate BRS at a HR of 60 bpm, BRS(60), which ranged from 9.5 to 30.1 ms/mmHg for the 10 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the dramatic effect of a small difference in HR on BRS, especially at lower HRs, BRS should be estimated at a wide range of HRs in order to determine the HR-corrected BRS from the individual HR-BRS relationship. Otherwise, comparisons of BRS between different individuals, study groups or following drug treatment or other interventions would be highly dependent on differences in HR and thereby easily misinterpreted.

Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial Investigators

BACKGROUND

Ventricular arrhythmias are a major cause of death after myocardial infarction, especially in patients with poor left-ventricular function. Previous attempts to identify and suppress arrhythmias with various antiarrhythmic drugs failed to reduce or actually increase mortality. Amiodarone is a powerful antiarrhythmic drug with several potentially beneficial actions, and has shown benefit in several small-scale studies. We postulated that this drug might reduce mortality in patients at high risk of death after myocardial infarction because of impaired ventricular function, irrespective of whether they had ventricular arrhythmias.

METHODS

The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT) was a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess whether amiodarone reduced all-cause mortality (primary endpoint) and cardiac mortality and arrhythmic death (secondary endpoints) in survivors of myocardial infarction with a left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less. Intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses were done.

FINDINGS

EMIAT enrolled 1486 patients (743 in the amiodarone group, 743 in the placebo group). Median follow-up was 21 months. All-cause mortality (103 deaths in the amiodarone group, 102 in the placebo group) and cardiac mortality did not differ between the two groups. However, in the amiodarone group, there was a 35% risk reduction (95% CI 0-58, p = 0.05) in arrhythmic deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings do not support the systematic prophylactic use of amiodarone in all patients with depressed left-ventricular function after myocardial infarction. However, the lack of proarrhythmia and the reduction in arrhythmic death support the use of amiodarone in patients for whom antiarrhythmic therapy is indicated.

Effect of d-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent and remote myocardial infarction. The SWORD Investigators. Survival With Oral d-Sotalol

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction is associated with an increased risk of death. Other studies have suggested that a potassium-channel blocker might reduce this risk with minimal adverse effects. We investigated whether d-sotalol, a pure potassium-channel blocker with no clinically significant beta-blocking activity, could reduce all-cause mortality in these high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less and either a recent (6-42 days) myocardial infarction or symptomatic heart failure with a remote (> 42 days) myocardial infarction were randomly assigned d-sotalol (100 mg increased to 200 mg twice daily, if tolerated) or matching placebo twice daily.

FINDINGS

After 3121 of the planned 6400 patients had been recruited, the trial was stopped. Among 1549 patients assigned d-sotalol, there were 78 deaths (5.0%) compared with 48 deaths (3.1%) among the 1572 patients assigned placebo (relative risk 1.65 [95% CI 1.15-2.36], p = 0.006). Presumed arrhythmic deaths (relative risk 1.77 [1.15-2.74], p = 0.008) accounted for the increased mortality. The effect was greater in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 31-40% than in those with lower ( <or= 30%) ejection fractions (relative risk 4.0 vs 1.2, p = 0.007).

INTERPRETATION

Among the 1549 patients evaluated, administration of d-sotalol was associated with increased mortality, which was presumed primarily to be due to arrhythmias. The prophylactic use of a specific potassium-channel blocker does not reduce mortality, and may be associated with increased mortality in high-risk patients after myocardial infarction.

Cardiac arrhythmia therapy

Cardiac dysfunction is often manifested as arrhythmia, with disruption of the normal periodicity and regularity of electromechanical activity. The therapy for arrhythmia begins with proper diagnosis, since many pharmacological interventions are themselves arrhythmogenic. Intervention for acute arrhythmia involves correction of underlying systemic conditions by ensuring adequate oxygenation, ventilation, acid-base homeostasis, electrolyte balance, and fluid status. Classification of antiarrhythmic agents assists in a structured treatment approach that utilizes different agents based on the etiology of the arrhythmia and the drug's mechanism of action. A deliberate treatment strategy guided by the morphological criteria of the arrhythmia modified by the rate and duration of complexes, noting symptoms and hemodynamic stability, is desirable.