This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation

CLINICAL STUDIES

Causes of death in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators (AVID) trial

Manuscript received November 11, 1998; revised manuscript received May 20, 1999, accepted June 29, 1999.

Reprint requests and correspondence: AVID Clinical Trial Center, 1107 NE 45th, Room 505, Seattle, Washington 98105
AVIDCTC{at}u.washington.edu

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed the causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial.

BACKGROUND

Both implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are used as mainstays of treatment for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias in patients who have survived either ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia with hemodynamic compromise and serious symptoms. The AVID Trial compared the effectiveness of these two therapies. Survival was better with the ICD. Assessment of the cause of death should help to determine the mechanism of improvement in survival with the ICD.

METHODS

Of 1,016 patients enrolled in the AVID Trial, 202 patients died. The mode of death was determined by the unblinded Principal Investigator and independently by an Events Committee, which reviewed materials meticulously blinded with respect to treatment. Deaths were classified as cardiac or noncardiac. Cardiac deaths were further classified as arrhythmic or nonarrhythmic, and causes of noncardiac death were identified.

RESULTS

Deaths were more frequent in patients treated with an AAD (n = 122), compared with patients treated with the ICD (n = 80), unadjusted p < 0.001, p = 0.012 adjusted for sequential monitoring. In AVID, 157 deaths were cardiac, and 79 were arrhythmic. The major effect of the ICD was to prevent arrhythmic death (AAD = 55, ICD = 24, nominal unadjusted p < 0.001). Nonarrhythmic cardiac deaths were equal (AAD = 39, ICD = 39). Patients treated with an AAD had a slightly greater incidence of noncardiac deaths (28 vs. 17, p = 0.053), primarily due to pulmonary and renal causes.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD is more effective than an AAD in reducing arrhythmic cardiac death, while nonarrhythmic cardiac death is unchanged. Of note, apparent arrhythmic death still seems to constitute 38% of all cardiac deaths despite treatment with an ICD. However, the ICD remains superior to an AAD in prolonging survival after life-threatening arrhythmias.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   AAD = antiarrhythmic drug   ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme   AVID = Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators   CHF = congestive heart failure   ECG = electrocardiogram   ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator   MI = myocardial infarction   VF = ventricular fibrillation   VT = ventricular tachycardia

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Krishnamoorthy and G. Y.H. Lip How safe is the antiarrhythmic drug therapy in atrial fibrillation? Europace, July 1, 2009; 11(7): 837 - 839. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Spotnitz Surgical Implantation of Pacemakers and Automatic Defibrillators Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 1395 - 1428. [Full Text]

				L. Testa, G. G.L. Biondi-Zoccai, A. D. Russo, F. Bellocci, F. Andreotti, and F. Crea Rate-control vs. rhythm-control in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2005; 26(19): 2000 - 2006. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Verma, A. Natale, B. J. Padanilam, E. N. Prystowsky, A. Verma, A. Natale, B. J. Padanilam, and E. N. Prystowsky Why Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Should Be Considered First-Line Therapy for Some Patients Circulation, August 23, 2005; 112(8): 1214 - 1222. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Steinberg, A. Sadaniantz, J. Kron, A. Krahn, D. M. Denny, J. Daubert, W. B. Campbell, E. Havranek, K. Murray, B. Olshansky, et al. Analysis of Cause-Specific Mortality in the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) Study Circulation, April 27, 2004; 109(16): 1973 - 1980. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. G. Stevenson and K. Soejima Inside or out? Another option for incessant ventricular tachycardia J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 4, 2003; 41(11): 2044 - 2045. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Spotnitz Pacemakers and Automatic Defibrillators Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 1293 - 1326. [Full Text]

				A. P. Hallstrom, J. H. McAnulty, B. L. Wilkoff, D. Follmann, M. H. Raitt, M. D. Carlson, A. M. Gillis, H.-T. Shih, J. L. Powell, H. Duff, et al. Patients at lower risk of arrhythmia recurrence: a subgroup in whom implantable defibrillators may not offer benefit J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 15, 2001; 37(4): 1093 - 1099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Hohnloser Prevention of recurrent life-threatening arrhythmias: will lipid-lowering therapy make a difference? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2000; 36(3): 773 - 775. [Full Text] [PDF]