CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL-TRIALS IN VENTRICULAR-TACHYCARDIA AND FIBRILLATION - IMPLICATIONS OF ESVEM, CASCADE, AND CASH FOR CLINICAL MANAGEMENT

Recent clinical trials in patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) have occurred in the setting of the disappointing results of postinfarction secondary prevention studies using Class I antiarrhythmics (e.g., CAST). ESVEM addressed in a randomized trial whether electrophysiologic study (EPS) or Holter monitoring (HM) is a more accurate predictor of long-term antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in VT/VF patients (N = 486) and what the relative efficacy of various antiarrhythmic agents is for VT/VF. Surprisingly, arrhythmia recurrence rates were not significantly different by the method of determining an efficacy prediction. However, arrhythmia recurrence and mortality were lower (by about 50% at 1 year) in patients treated with sotalol (a mixed Class II/III agent) than with other drugs (Class I). CASCADE evaluated empiric amiodarone versus guided (EPS or HM) standard (Class I) therapy in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to VF. The primary endpoint of cardiac death, resuscitated VF, or syncopal shock (in ICD patients) was reduced by amiodarone compared with conventional therapy (9% vs 23% at 1 year). An interim report of the ongoing CASH study suggested in 230 survivors of cardiac arrest that propafenone (Class IC) provided less effective prophylaxis (approximately 20% 1-year mortality) compared with randomly assigned therapies with amiodarone, metoprolol, or an ICD (approximately 14% mortality rates) and was excluded from further study. These studies have led to a paradigm shift in the approach to antiarrhythmic therapy of VT/VF: drugs with antisympathetic plus Class III (refractoriness prolonging) action (i.e., sotalol, amiodarone) are superior to traditional drugs with Class I (conduction slowing) effects, even when guided by EPS or HM.