Comparison of clinical characteristics and frequency of implantable defibrillator use between randomized patients in the antiarrhythmics vs implantable defibrillators (avid) trial and nonrandomized registry patients

Soo G. Kim, Al Hallstrom, John C. Love, Yves Rosenberg, Judy Powell, James Roth, Michael Brodsky, Rich Moore, Bruce Wilkoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the Antiarrhythmics Vs Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, all patients who meet the study entry criteria are followed in a registry. During the period between June 1993 and June 1995, of 1,117 patients who were enrolled in the registry and met the study entry criteria, 476 were randomized to receive either implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol), and 641 patients were not randomized for a variety of reasons including: patient refusal (42%); physician refusal (43%); concerns about ability to maintain follow-up over several years (10%), and others (6%). There were no significant differences between the 476 randomized and 641 nonrandomized patients with regard to clinical characteristics, left ventricular function, history of congestive heart failure, medical history, and previous cardiac procedures performed before the index event, except that randomized patients were slightly older (65 vs 62 years) and had a slightly higher prevalence of coronary artery disease and previous myocardial infarction. The index event and location of the index event were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although 14% of registry patients received neither ICD nor antiarrhythmic drug therapy, ICDs were no more frequently used in the registry patient than antiarrhythmic drugs (45% for ICD vs 42% for drugs). Thus, randomized AVID patients have very similar clinical characteristics, cardiac history, and presenting arrhythmias as to nonrandomized eligible patients. Therefore, the results of the AVID trial may be generalized for all patients with AVID-eligible arrhythmias.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)454-457
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiology
Volume80
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 15 1997

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Registries
Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Sotalol
Drug Therapy
Amiodarone
Left Ventricular Function
Coronary Artery Disease
Heart Failure
History
Myocardial Infarction
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of clinical characteristics and frequency of implantable defibrillator use between randomized patients in the antiarrhythmics vs implantable defibrillators (avid) trial and nonrandomized registry patients. / Kim, Soo G.; Hallstrom, Al; Love, John C.; Rosenberg, Yves; Powell, Judy; Roth, James; Brodsky, Michael; Moore, Rich; Wilkoff, Bruce.

In: American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 80, No. 4, 15.08.1997, p. 454-457.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, Soo G. ; Hallstrom, Al ; Love, John C. ; Rosenberg, Yves ; Powell, Judy ; Roth, James ; Brodsky, Michael ; Moore, Rich ; Wilkoff, Bruce. / Comparison of clinical characteristics and frequency of implantable defibrillator use between randomized patients in the antiarrhythmics vs implantable defibrillators (avid) trial and nonrandomized registry patients. In: American Journal of Cardiology. 1997 ; Vol. 80, No. 4. pp. 454-457.
@article{7aa4c6cca8e245db8dc9db7ac2043679,
title = "Comparison of clinical characteristics and frequency of implantable defibrillator use between randomized patients in the antiarrhythmics vs implantable defibrillators (avid) trial and nonrandomized registry patients",
abstract = "In the Antiarrhythmics Vs Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, all patients who meet the study entry criteria are followed in a registry. During the period between June 1993 and June 1995, of 1,117 patients who were enrolled in the registry and met the study entry criteria, 476 were randomized to receive either implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol), and 641 patients were not randomized for a variety of reasons including: patient refusal (42{\%}); physician refusal (43{\%}); concerns about ability to maintain follow-up over several years (10{\%}), and others (6{\%}). There were no significant differences between the 476 randomized and 641 nonrandomized patients with regard to clinical characteristics, left ventricular function, history of congestive heart failure, medical history, and previous cardiac procedures performed before the index event, except that randomized patients were slightly older (65 vs 62 years) and had a slightly higher prevalence of coronary artery disease and previous myocardial infarction. The index event and location of the index event were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although 14{\%} of registry patients received neither ICD nor antiarrhythmic drug therapy, ICDs were no more frequently used in the registry patient than antiarrhythmic drugs (45{\%} for ICD vs 42{\%} for drugs). Thus, randomized AVID patients have very similar clinical characteristics, cardiac history, and presenting arrhythmias as to nonrandomized eligible patients. Therefore, the results of the AVID trial may be generalized for all patients with AVID-eligible arrhythmias.",
author = "Kim, {Soo G.} and Al Hallstrom and Love, {John C.} and Yves Rosenberg and Judy Powell and James Roth and Michael Brodsky and Rich Moore and Bruce Wilkoff",
year = "1997",
month = "8",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00394-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "80",
pages = "454--457",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of clinical characteristics and frequency of implantable defibrillator use between randomized patients in the antiarrhythmics vs implantable defibrillators (avid) trial and nonrandomized registry patients

AU - Kim, Soo G.

AU - Hallstrom, Al

AU - Love, John C.

AU - Rosenberg, Yves

AU - Powell, Judy

AU - Roth, James

AU - Brodsky, Michael

AU - Moore, Rich

AU - Wilkoff, Bruce

PY - 1997/8/15

Y1 - 1997/8/15

N2 - In the Antiarrhythmics Vs Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, all patients who meet the study entry criteria are followed in a registry. During the period between June 1993 and June 1995, of 1,117 patients who were enrolled in the registry and met the study entry criteria, 476 were randomized to receive either implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol), and 641 patients were not randomized for a variety of reasons including: patient refusal (42%); physician refusal (43%); concerns about ability to maintain follow-up over several years (10%), and others (6%). There were no significant differences between the 476 randomized and 641 nonrandomized patients with regard to clinical characteristics, left ventricular function, history of congestive heart failure, medical history, and previous cardiac procedures performed before the index event, except that randomized patients were slightly older (65 vs 62 years) and had a slightly higher prevalence of coronary artery disease and previous myocardial infarction. The index event and location of the index event were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although 14% of registry patients received neither ICD nor antiarrhythmic drug therapy, ICDs were no more frequently used in the registry patient than antiarrhythmic drugs (45% for ICD vs 42% for drugs). Thus, randomized AVID patients have very similar clinical characteristics, cardiac history, and presenting arrhythmias as to nonrandomized eligible patients. Therefore, the results of the AVID trial may be generalized for all patients with AVID-eligible arrhythmias.

AB - In the Antiarrhythmics Vs Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, all patients who meet the study entry criteria are followed in a registry. During the period between June 1993 and June 1995, of 1,117 patients who were enrolled in the registry and met the study entry criteria, 476 were randomized to receive either implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol), and 641 patients were not randomized for a variety of reasons including: patient refusal (42%); physician refusal (43%); concerns about ability to maintain follow-up over several years (10%), and others (6%). There were no significant differences between the 476 randomized and 641 nonrandomized patients with regard to clinical characteristics, left ventricular function, history of congestive heart failure, medical history, and previous cardiac procedures performed before the index event, except that randomized patients were slightly older (65 vs 62 years) and had a slightly higher prevalence of coronary artery disease and previous myocardial infarction. The index event and location of the index event were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Although 14% of registry patients received neither ICD nor antiarrhythmic drug therapy, ICDs were no more frequently used in the registry patient than antiarrhythmic drugs (45% for ICD vs 42% for drugs). Thus, randomized AVID patients have very similar clinical characteristics, cardiac history, and presenting arrhythmias as to nonrandomized eligible patients. Therefore, the results of the AVID trial may be generalized for all patients with AVID-eligible arrhythmias.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030801341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030801341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00394-9

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9149(97)00394-9

M3 - Article

VL - 80

SP - 454

EP - 457

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 4

ER -