Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 1999 20(5):364-374; doi:10.1053/euhj.1998.1279
Copyright © 1999 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow References
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kovoor, P.
Right arrow Articles by Ross, D.L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kovoor, P.
Right arrow Articles by Ross, D.L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Comparison of sotalol with amiodarone for long-term treatment of spontaneous sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia based on coronary artery disease

P. Kovoor, V. Eipper, K. Byth, M.J. Cooper, UtherJ.B. and D.L. Rossf1

Department of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, Australia

revised August 11, 1998; accepted August 18, 1998

Abstract

Aim

To compare the efficacy of sotalol versus amiodarone for long-term treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Methods

Patients (n=75) with spontaneous, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias secondary to remote myo-cardial infarction were studied. After intravenous electrophysiological testing, both sotalol and amiodarone were predicted to be ineffective in 50 (67%) patients. Five patients were excluded. Forty-five patients were randomized to receive sotalol (n=22) or amiodarone (n=23) for maintenance therapy. The primary outcome variable was the time to first recurrence of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia.

Results

At 36 months, 75% of those allocated sotalol remained free of ventricular tachyarrhythmia compared with 38% of those allocated amiodarone (P=0·05). On multivariate analysis the risk of recurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia for patients on amiodarone was 5·9 times higher (P=0·008) than that for patients on sotalol.

Conclusion

Sotalol is superior to amiodarone for long-term treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmia secondary to coronary artery disease when both drugs have been predicted to be ineffective at intravenous electrophysiological testing. Randomized trials in larger numbers of patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmia need to be performed comparing the two agents directly.

Key Words: Sotalol • amiodarone • ventricular tachyarrhythmia • ventricular tachycardia • coronary artery disease

f1 Correspondence:Professor D. L. Ross, Department of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, 2145, Australia.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
N. Saoudi, J.P. Rinaldi, K. Yaici, and M. Bergonzi
Dofetilide: what role in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias?
Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2001; 22(23): 2141 - 2143.
[PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
G. Boriani, A. Lubinski, A. Capucci, P. Niederle, Z. Kornacewicz-Jack, A.M. Wnuk-Wojnar, M. Borggrefe, J. Brachmann, M. Biffi, G.S. Butrous, et al.
A multicentre, double-blind randomized crossover comparative study on the efficacy and safety of dofetilide vs sotalol in patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia and ischaemic heart disease
Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2001; 22(23): 2180 - 2191.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.