European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on January 16, 2007
European Heart Journal 2007 28(4):469-477; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl478
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review
1 Epidemiology Unit, Department of Cardiology, Paseo Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona 119-129, 08035, Spain
2 Department of Cardiology, Dos de Maig Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
3 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Received 17 October 2006; revised 4 December 2006; accepted 21 December 2006; online publish-ahead-of-print 16 January 2007.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +34 932746177; fax: +34 932746063.E-mail address: nacho_ferreira{at}hotmail.com
Aims To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy for preventing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies.
Methods and results We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all randomized, controlled trials assessing the efficacy of adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Trial data were reviewed and extracted independently by two investigators in an unblinded, standardized manner. Eight trials including a total of 1889 patients were analysed. There was heterogeneity in the type of antiarrhythmic used in the treatment arm (amiodarone, sotalol, azimilide, and dofetilide) as well as in the control group (five trials compared with placebo and three trials compared with ß-blocker). The main outcome, risk of shock therapy, was reduced when comparing amiodarone plus ß-blocker with ß-blocker alone (HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14–0.52) and when comparing sotalol with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.4–0.78). The effect was not conclusive when comparing sotalol with other ß-blocker (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.37–1) and azimilide or dofetilide with placebo (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58–1.04 and HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.43–1.04, respectively). Although there were some benefits for secondary outcomes in all antiarrhythmics, the magnitude of the benefit was higher with amiodarone.
Conclusion Amiodarone is the most effective treatment to reduce ICD shock therapies. The benefit of other antiarrhythmics is limited to secondary outcomes.
Key Words: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) • Amiodarone • Sotalol • Azimilide • Dofetilide • ß-blocker
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. van Erven and M. J Schalij Troubleshooting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator related problems Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 649 - 660. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. B. Johansen, S. S. Pedersen, H. Spindler, K. Andersen, J. C. Nielsen, and P. T. Mortensen Symptomatic heart failure is the most important clinical correlate of impaired quality of life, anxiety, and depression in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients: a single-centre, cross-sectional study in 610 patients Europace, May 1, 2008; 10(5): 545 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|