background Sudden death from cardiac causes remains a leading cause of death among patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). Treatment with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) has been proposed to improve the prognosis in such patients. methods We randomly assigned 2521 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III CHF and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35 percent or less to conventional therapy for CHF plus placebo (847 patients), conventional therapy plus amiodarone (845 patients), or conventional therapy plus a conservatively programmed, shockonly, single-lead ICD (829 patients). Placebo and amiodarone were administered in a double-blind fashion. The primary end point was death from any cause. results The median LVEF in patients was 25 percent; 70 percent were in NYHA class II, and 30 percent were in class III CHF. The cause of CHF was ischemic in 52 percent and nonischemic in 48 percent. The median follow-up was 45.5 months. There were 244 deaths (29 percent) in the placebo group, 240 (28 percent) in the amiodarone group, and 182 (22 percent) in the ICD group. As compared with placebo, amiodarone was associated with a similar risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.06; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.53) and ICD therapy was associated with a decreased risk of death of 23 percent (0.77; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.96; P=0.007) and an absolute decrease in mortality of 7.2 percentage points after five years in the overall population. Results did not vary according to either ischemic or nonischemic causes of CHF, but they did vary according to the NYHA class. conclusions In patients with NYHA class II or III CHF and LVEF of 35 percent or less, amiodarone has no favorable effect on survival, whereas single-lead, shock-only ICD therapy reduces overall mortality by 23 percent.

/pdf/amiodarone-or-an-implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator-for-2x2b211ay1.pdf

Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive Heart failure

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.ejheart.2008.08.005

ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).

BACKGROUND Patients who survive life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias are at risk for recurrent arrhythmias. They can be treated with either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or antiarrhythmic drugs, but the relative efficacy of these two treatment strategies is unknown. METHODS To address this issue, we conducted a randomized comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardia. Patients with ventricular tachycardia also had either syncope or other serious cardiac symptoms, along with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less. One group of patients was treated with implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator; the other received class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone at empirically determined doses. Fifty-six clinical centers screened all patients who presented with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation during a period of nearly four years. Of 1016 patients (45 percent of whom had ventricular fibrillation, and 55 percent ventricular tachycardia), 507 were randomly assigned to treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and 509 to antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS Follow-up was complete for 1013 patients (99.7 percent). Overall survival was greater with the implantable defibrillator, with unadjusted estimates of 89.3 percent, as compared with 82.3 percent in the antiarrhythmic-drug group at one year, 81.6 percent versus 74.7 percent at two years, and 75.4 percent versus 64.1 percent at three years (P<0.02). The corresponding reductions in mortality (with 95 percent confidence limits) with the implantable defibrillator were 39+/-20 percent, 27+/-21 percent, and 31+/-21 percent CONCLUSIONS Among survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia causing severe symptoms, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for increasing overall survival.

A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias

ACC
: American College of Cardiology
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ACS
: acute coronary syndrome
AF
: atrial fibrillation
AGNES
: Arrhythmia Genetics in the Netherlands
AHA
: American Heart Association
AMIOVIRT
: AMIOdarone Versus Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator:

/pdf/2015-esc-guidelines-for-the-management-of-patients-with-3hzn8vw0c4.pdf

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: The Task Force for the Management of Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC)

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Chair; Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair; Cynthia D. Adams, MSN, APRN-BC, FAHA; Jeffery L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Elliott M. Antman, MD, FACC, FAHA[‡][1]; Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Sharon Ann Hunt, MD, FACC, FAHA; Rick Nishimura,

/pdf/acc-aha-esc-2006-guidelines-for-the-management-of-patients-5fc8py53ut.pdf

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society

http://gornbein.bol.ucla.edu/assn3-Julian-amiodarone.pdf

Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT

The objective of the European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT) is to assess the efficacy of amiodarone on mortality of patients with depressed left ventricular (LV) function following myocardial infarction (Ml). The rationale for the trial is as follows: patients with poor LV function after acute Ml have a high sudden cardiac death (SCD) mortality; amiodarone is a successful prophylactic therapy against SCD in patients with ventricular arrhythmias; a number of small studies (Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial [CAMIAT] pilot study, Basel Antiarrhythmic Study & Infarct Survival [BASIS], and the Polish Amiodarone Trial [PAT]) of prophylactic amiodarone post AMI have shown a beneficial response attributable to amiodarone. Patients are enrolled between 5 and 21 days after acute MI if LV ejection fraction (assessed by multiplegated image acquisition nuclear angiography) is ≤40%. The study group is stratified according to ejection fraction (stratum 1,31–40%; stratum 2, 700 patients are enrolled from >60 centers (13 countries). The total study mortality (10% at 500 days) and the differential mortality of both strata are as anticipated. Side effects have been infrequent and very few patients have been withdrawn from the study. Trial conclusion is forecast for October 1995.

P. Simon

Papers

Randomised trial of effect of amiodarone on mortality in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after recent myocardial infarction: EMIAT

The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT)

Does amiodarone reduce sudden death and cardiac mortality after myocardial infarction