Ventricular arrhythmias

  • Peter Ott
Article
  • 23 Downloads

Opinion statement

  • Results of recent clinical trials allow an evidence-based approach to ventricular arrhythmias (VAs).

  • The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has clearly established its role in the secondary prevention of VA and should be considered first-line therapy in patients surviving episodes of potentially lethal VAs. It has also been clearly shown that in these patients, antiarrhythmic drug selection by means of serial Holter recording or electrophysiologic study does not improve survival.

  • Antiarrhythmic drug therapy (including amiodarone) as primary prevention in high-risk patients (eg, those who have experienced a myocardial infarction or who have heart failure) has thus far not reduced the mortality rate.

  • In contrast, use of the ICD as a primary preventative strategy has reduced the mortality rate in patients after myocardial infarction who have reduced left ventric-ular function, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and inducible ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiologic study. Thus, patients fitting this clinical pro-file are best served by implantation of an ICD.

  • Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia occurs rarely in patients without heart disease. These arrhythmias are best treated with catheter ablation therapy, a treatment with a high rate of success and a low rate of complications.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Scheinman MM, Levine JH, Cannom DS, et al.: Dose-ranging study of intravenous amiodarone in patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Circulation 1995, 92:3264–3272.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kowey PR, Levine JH, Herre JM, et al.: Randomized double-blind comparison of intravenous amiodarone and bretylium in the treatment of patients with recurrent hemodynamically destabilizing ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Circulation 1995, 92:3255–3263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kudenchuck PJ, Cobb LA, Copass MK, et al.: Amiodarone for resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:871–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mason JW for the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators: A comparison of electrophysiologic testing with Holter monitoring to predict antiarrhythmic drug efficacy for ventricular tachycardia. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:323–329.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greene HL for the CASCADE Investigators: Randomized antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest. Am J Cardiol 1993, 72:280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators: Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1989, 321:406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators: Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992, 327:227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waldo AL, Camm AJ, deRuyter H, et al.: Effect of D-sotalol on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction. Lancet 1996, 349:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Julian DG, Camm AJ, Frangin G, et al.: Randomized trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT. Lancet 1997, 349:667–674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cairns JA, Connolly SJ, Roberts R, et al.: Randomized trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT. Lancet 1997, 349:675–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh SN, Fletscher RD, Fisher SG, et al.: Amiodarone in patients with congestive heart failure and asymp-tomatic ventricular arrhythmia. N Engl J Med 1995, 333:77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doval HC, Nul DR, Grancelli HO, et al.: Randomized trial of low dose amiodarone in severe congestive heart failure. Lancet 1994, 344:493–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators: A comparison of anti-arrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near fatal ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med 1997, 337:1576–1583. This study demonstrates that ICD therapy is superior to amiodarone therapy in reducing the mortality rate in patients who have survived potentially lethal VA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Connolly SJ, Gent M, Roberts RS, et al.: Canadian implantable defibrillator study (CIDS). A randomized trial of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator against amiodarone. Circulation 2000, 101:1297–1302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al.: Improved survival with an implantable defibrillator in patients with coronary artery disease at increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:1933–1940. This paper, together with Buxton et al. [16], clarifies the role of the ICD in the primary prevention of VA in a selected patient population with coronary artery disease, prior myo-cardial infarction, reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction of 35% or less), and asymptomatic nonsustained VT on Holter monitoring as well as inducible VT on electrophysiology study.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buxton EA, Lee KL, Fisher JD, et al.: A randomized study of the prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1882–1920. This paper, together with Moss et al. [15], clarifies the role of the ICD in the primary prevention of VA in a selected patient population with coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction of 35% or less), and asymptomatic nonsustained VT on Holter monitoring as well as inducible VT on electrophysiology study.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brugada P, Brugada J: Right bundle branch block, persistent ST segment elevation and sudden death: a distinct clinical and electrocardiographic syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992, 20:1391–1396. This is the original paper describing a new syndrome, which can be recognized by its peculiar electrocardiographic features. Patients with this condition are at high risk for sudden death and should be treated with an ICD.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brugada J, Brugada R, Brugada P: Right bundle branch block and ST segment elevation in leads V1 through V3. A marker for sudden death in patients with no demonstrable structural heart disease. Circulation 1998, 97:457–460.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Ott
    • 1
  1. 1.Sarver Heart CenterUniversity of Arizona Health Sciences CenterTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations