JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1995; 25:1601-1604
© 1995 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Biblo, L.
Right arrow Articles by Waldo, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Biblo, L.
Right arrow Articles by Waldo, A.

Insights into the Electrophysiology Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Trial: its programmed stimulation protocol may introduce bias when assessing long-term antiarrhythmic drug therapy

LA Biblo, MD Carlson, and AL Waldo

Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals of Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

OBJECTIVES. We hypothesized that if the Electrophysiology Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial programmed stimulation protocol misclassified some drug trials as effective, then the misclassification rate would be proportionally greater for drugs other than sotalol. BACKGROUND. In the ESVEM trial, patients treated with sotalol had fewer arrhythmic recurrences than those treated with other antiarrhythmic drugs despite similar efficacy predictions during electrophysiologic testing. METHODS. We retrospectively compared the standard programmed stimulation protocol used at Case Western Reserve University, which used three extrastimuli during all follow-up studies, with the ESVEM protocol in 176 antiarrhythmic drug trials: sotalol (n = 54), procainamide (n = 73) and quinidine/mexiletine (n = 49). RESULTS. Predictions of efficacy were higher in the sotalol trials (14 of 54 standard, 20 of 54 ESVEM) than in procainamide trials (7 of 73 standard, 14 of 73 ESVEM) or quinidine/mexiletine trials (1 of 49 standard, 7 of 49 ESVEM). Thus, the two protocols classified 19 of 176 trials differently: not effective by the standard protocol but effective by the ESVEM trial. Discordant predictions of drug efficacy constituted a smaller proportion of ESVEM protocol efficacy predictions for sotalol (6 [30%] of 20) than for the other drugs (13 [62%] of 21, p < or = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS. In the present study, the ESVEM programmed stimulation protocol predicted efficacy more often than the standard protocol. Discordant predictions represented a smaller portion of efficacy predictions for sotalol than for the other drugs. Thus, in the ESVEM trial, the superior long-term follow-up observed in patients assigned to sotalol may have been an artifact of the stimulation protocol utilized by the ESVEM investigators.





HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1995 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.