In-hospital versus out-of-hospital presentation of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias predicts survival Results from the AVID registry

AbstractOBJECTIVESThis study describes the outcomes of patients from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study Registry to determine how the location of ventricular arrhythmia presentation influences survival.BACKGROUNDMost studies of cardiac arrest report outcome following out-of-hospital resuscitation. In contrast, there are minimal data on long-term outcome following in-hospital cardiac arrest.METHODSThe AVID Study was a multicenter, randomized comparison of drug and defibrillator strategies to treat life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. A Registry was maintained of all patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias at each study site. The present study includes patients who had AVID-eligible arrhythmias, both randomized and not randomized. Patients with in-hospital and out-of-hospital presentations are compared. Data on long-term mortality were obtained through the National Death Index.RESULTSThe unadjusted mortality rates at one- and two-year follow-ups were 23% and 31.1% for patients with in-hospital presentations, and 10.5% and 16.8% for those with out-of-hospital presentations (p < 0.001), respectively. The adjusted mortality rates at one- and two-year follow-ups were 14.8% and 20.9% for patients with in-hospital presentations, and 8.4% and 14.1% for those with out-of-hospital presentations (p < 0.001), respectively. The adjusted long-term relative risk for in-hospital versus out-of-hospital presentation was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–1.9).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients with out-of-hospital presentations of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias not due to a reversible cause, patients with in-hospital presentations have a worse long-term prognosis. Because location of ventricular arrhythmia presentation is an independent predictor of long-term outcome, it should be considered as an element of risk stratification and when planning clinical trials

Tocainide for drug-resistant sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias

AbstractEighty-two patients with drug-resistant ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation were treated with oral tocainide. Treatment in 54 patients, all with inducible ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation at baseline electrophysiologic testing, was based on the results of invasive electrophysiologic testing. Twenty-eight additional patients with frequent spontaneous ventricular tachycardia or no inducible arrhythmia during electrophysiologic testing were treated on the basis of the findings of electrocardiographic (ECG) Holter monitoring.Tocainide was effective in 7 (13%) and partially effective in 5 (8%) of the 54 patients in the electrophysiologic study group and was effective in 17 (61%) of the 28 patients in the ECG monitoring group. History of previous myocardial infarction and failure of response to lidocaine correlated with failure to respond to tocainide. Side effects were common both during initial therapy and during long-term treatment and necessitated discontinuation of tocainide therapy in 17% of the patients. At a mean follow-up period of 14 months, 13 patients are still receiving tocainide and are arrhythmia-free.In conclusion, the usefulness of oral tocainide in the management of drug-refractory sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation is limited because of its low effectiveness and frequent side effects