Antiarrhythmic drug use in the implantable defibrillator arm of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study

• Published in: The American heart journal 2001-09, Vol.142 (3), p.520-529
• Main Authors: Steinberg, Jonathan S., Martins, James, Sadanandan, Saihari, Goldner, Bruce, Menchavez, Edith, Domanski, Michael, Russo, Andrea, Tullo, Nicholas, Hallstrom, Al
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - administration & dosage; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiac dysrhythmias; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cohort Studies; Cross-Over Studies; Defibrillators, Implantable - adverse effects; Female; Heart; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Tachycardia, Ventricular - therapy; Ventricular Fibrillation - therapy
• ISSN: 0002-8703; 1097-6744
• DOI: 10.1067/mhj.2001.117129

Background Previous retrospective or observational series suggest that many patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) will be treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to modify the frequency or manifestation of recurrent ventricular arrhythmias. The relative clinical benefit, however, is uncertain, and deleterious interactions can occur. The objective of this clinical investigation was to study the need for, and effects of, concomitant AAD use with the ICD in a prospectively defined cohort. Methods All patients randomly assigned to the ICD arm of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study were followed for the addition of class I or III AADs (“crossover”) after hospital discharge. Addition of AADs was strictly regulated by AVID protocol. The timing and reasons for crossover and the effects on ventricular arrhythmia recurrence were analyzed. Patients were excluded if they required AADs before hospital discharge after index arrhythmias or if they had no ventricular arrhythmia before initiation of AADs. Results After a median follow-up of 135 days, 81 (18%) of the 461 eligible patients required AADs and formed the crossover group. The primary reason for crossover was frequent ICD shocks in 64% of patients. The most common AAD selected was amiodarone (in 42%). Independent predictors of crossover were lower ejection fraction, absence of ventricular fibrillation, or presence of nonsyncopal ventricular tachycardia at presentation, prior unexplained syncope, female sex, and history of cigarette smoking. Before AAD use, the 1-year arrhythmia event rate was 90%; after AAD, the event rate was only 64% (P =.0001). The time to first event was extended from 3.9 ± 0.7 months to 11.2 ± 1.8 months. There were 1.4 ± 3.7 fewer ICD therapy events (P =.005) after crossover, predominantly accounted for by reduction in shocks rather than antitachycardia pacing therapies. Conclusions The majority of patients who receive ICDs for sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation can be treated without AADs. Most commonly, AADs are added to combat frequent ICD shocks, which are successfully reduced by AAD therapy. (Am Heart J 2001;142:520-9.)