Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

D. W. Richardson, L. A. Cobb, C. M. Pratt, J. L. Anderson, F. Ehlert, A. E. Epstein, D. Flynn, H. L. Greene, P. Hallstrom, Soo G. Kim, L. R. Klevan, R. Moore, P. Mounsey, E. Schron, M. Mirowski, P. R. Reid, M. M. Mower

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

82 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1552-1559
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Cause of Death
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
Survival
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Ventricular Fibrillation
Therapeutics
Ventricular Tachycardia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Richardson, D. W., Cobb, L. A., Pratt, C. M., Anderson, J. L., Ehlert, F., Epstein, A. E., ... Mower, M. M. (1999). Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 34(5), 1552-1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00376-9

Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. / Richardson, D. W.; Cobb, L. A.; Pratt, C. M.; Anderson, J. L.; Ehlert, F.; Epstein, A. E.; Flynn, D.; Greene, H. L.; Hallstrom, P.; Kim, Soo G.; Klevan, L. R.; Moore, R.; Mounsey, P.; Schron, E.; Mirowski, M.; Reid, P. R.; Mower, M. M.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 34, No. 5, 01.11.1999, p. 1552-1559.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Richardson, DW, Cobb, LA, Pratt, CM, Anderson, JL, Ehlert, F, Epstein, AE, Flynn, D, Greene, HL, Hallstrom, P, Kim, SG, Klevan, LR, Moore, R, Mounsey, P, Schron, E, Mirowski, M, Reid, PR & Mower, MM 1999, 'Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1552-1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00376-9
Richardson, D. W. ; Cobb, L. A. ; Pratt, C. M. ; Anderson, J. L. ; Ehlert, F. ; Epstein, A. E. ; Flynn, D. ; Greene, H. L. ; Hallstrom, P. ; Kim, Soo G. ; Klevan, L. R. ; Moore, R. ; Mounsey, P. ; Schron, E. ; Mirowski, M. ; Reid, P. R. ; Mower, M. M. / Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1999 ; Vol. 34, No. 5. pp. 1552-1559.
@article{148a04dbb14347c68c72243dfefa6bf3,
title = "Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Richardson, {D. W.} and Cobb, {L. A.} and Pratt, {C. M.} and Anderson, {J. L.} and F. Ehlert and Epstein, {A. E.} and D. Flynn and Greene, {H. L.} and P. Hallstrom and Kim, {Soo G.} and Klevan, {L. R.} and R. Moore and P. Mounsey and E. Schron and M. Mirowski and Reid, {P. R.} and Mower, {M. M.}",
year = "1999",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00376-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "1552--1559",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causes of death in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial

AU - Richardson, D. W.

AU - Cobb, L. A.

AU - Pratt, C. M.

AU - Anderson, J. L.

AU - Ehlert, F.

AU - Epstein, A. E.

AU - Flynn, D.

AU - Greene, H. L.

AU - Hallstrom, P.

AU - Kim, Soo G.

AU - Klevan, L. R.

AU - Moore, R.

AU - Mounsey, P.

AU - Schron, E.

AU - Mirowski, M.

AU - Reid, P. R.

AU - Mower, M. M.

PY - 1999/11/1

Y1 - 1999/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033230080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033230080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00376-9

DO - 10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00376-9

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 1552

EP - 1559

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 5

ER -