Clinical criteria for predicting benefit of ICD/PM in post myocardial infarction patients: an AVID and CAST analysis.

BACKGROUND

Three clinical factors from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial-heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction and certain historical features defined a subgroup in which an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD/PM) has a mortality advantage over amiodarone.

METHODS

These three factors were jointly evaluated in the AVID cohort with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and the results applied in placebo-treated post-infarction patients in the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial (CAST).

RESULTS

Similar predictive power was noted in AVID patients with IHD. In CAST the factors defined three groups; one group (5.8%), corresponding to AVID patients that had high risk and benefited from an ICD/PM and another group (17.2%) corresponding to patients in AVID where the risk was moderate and ICD/PM and amiodarone had equal efficacy, demonstrated a two-fold higher risk of sudden arrhythmic than non-arrhythmic death and hence would be expected to benefit from antiarrhythmia therapy. The third group, corresponding to AVID patients with low risk of arrhythmia, demonstrated similar and low risks of sudden arrhythmic and non-arrhythmic death. Thus this group (77%) is unlikely to benefit from indiscriminate antiarrhythmia therapy. Onset of risk of death in CAST patients was offset from randomization by 3 to 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Readily available clinical criteria identify a small group likely to benefit from an ICD/PM after recent myocardial infarction (MI) and the remainder unlikely to benefit from nonselective ICD/PM therapy. Additional risk stratification should focus on the latter patients and be timed to allow ICD/PM implantation between 2 and 6 months after MI.