Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator Trial (AVID)
From Ask Dr Wiki
Contents |
Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Trial (AVID)
Background
To evaluate if use of an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) results in reduction in total mortality, when compared with conventional pharmacological therapy, in patients resuscitated from sudden cardiac death who are otherwise at very high risk of mortality from arrhythmic causes. Patients meeting the criteria were randomized to treatment with an ICD or treatment with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (Amiodarone or Sotalol). The primary endpoint was total mortality. Secondary endpoints were cost of health care and quality of life. Nonlethal events such as ICD shock, sustained arrhythmia, or syncope were tabulated.
Results
The AVID study was stopped early because of the findings that after one year, patients in the defibrillator group experienced a nearly 38 percent reduction in deaths compared to the group of patients taking an antiarrhythmic drug. The defibrillator group had about a 25 percent reduction in deaths in years two and three.
Reference
The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Investigators. A comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias. N Engl J Med.
