Satomi Kazuhiro, Kurita Takashi, Takatsuki Seiji, Yokoyama Yasuhiro, Chinushi Masaomi, Tsuboi Naoya, Nitta Takashi, Shoda Morio, Mitamura Hideo
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Japan.
Circ J. 2006 Aug;70(8):977-84. doi: 10.1253/circj.70.977.
Whether amiodarone can improve the patient's clinical outcome by reducing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy deliveries for ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF) has not been clearly evaluated.
A total of 507 patients with VT/VF due to organic heart disease who had ICDs implanted were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into 3 groups: Amiodarone (n=247), Class I anti-arrhythmic drug (n=103) and CONTROL (n=157) groups, and the total cause mortality and arrhythmic event free survival rates were evaluated between the groups. The mean follow-up period was 38+/-27 months. The left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly decreased in the Amiodarone group (Amiodarone: 37+/-15%; Class I: 39+/-16%;
44+/-17%). The mortality and arrhythmic events were significantly higher in the Class I group than the Amiodarone group (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the Amiodarone and CONTROL groups (arrhythmic event free rate at 5 years: Amiodarone: 53%; Class I: 35%;
48%; 5 year survival: 86%, 74% and 77%, respectively). Side effects from amiodarone were found in 12% of the patients, but no fatal events were observed.
The present study could not demonstrate the benefit of amiodarone in ICD patients, probably due to a significant clinical bias exerted in selecting this drug.