• Marcus G Hennersdorf, Verena Niebch, Ernst G Vester, Joachim Winter, Christian Perings, and Bodo E Strauer.
• Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Angiology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. hennersdorf@med.uni-duesseldorf.de
• Cardiology. 2003 Jan 1; 99 (4): 190-7.

AbstractSudden cardiac arrest survivors have a high risk of suffering from recurrent arrhythmic events. Recent studies have shown that these patients have a significantly decreased mortality rate, if they are supplied with an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term prognosis of patients with electrophysiologically guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy in comparison to patients with ICD. 204 consecutive survivors of sudden cardiac arrest were enrolled in this study. All patients were examined with an initial electrophysiologic study (EPS) with programmed ventricular stimulation. Patients were treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (if the inducible tachycardia was suppressed) or with the implantation of an ICD. The maximal follow-up period was 120 months, the mean period was 53.3 +/- 31.4 months (ICD) versus 60.3 +/- 35.5 months (EPS, nonsignificant). Patients with ICD showed an overall mortality rate of 14.6%, whereas EPS-guided patients had a mortality rate of 43.2% (p < 0.001). The cardiac and arrhythmogenic mortality rates were significantly lower in the ICD group (12 vs. 43%, p < 0.01, and 1 vs. 16%, p < 0.001, respectively). A reduction of the mortality risk was observed in the ICD group by up to 61% (all-cause mortality), 52% (cardiac mortality) and 97.2% (arrhythmogenic mortality). In arrhythmic event survivors with ICD, arrhythmic and overall mortality rates are significantly lower compared to patients with an EPS-guided drug therapy. In the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, ICD should be the first choice of antiarrhythmic therapy.Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel

29 keywords...

hide…