Design and Results of the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Registry

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background —The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study compared treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators versus antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). AVID maintained a Registry on all patients, randomized or not, with any VA or unexplained syncope who could be considered for either of the treatment strategies. Trial-eligible arrhythmias were the categories of VF cardiac arrest, Syncopal VT, and Symptomatic VT, below. Methods and Results —Of 5989 patients screened, 4595 were registered and 1016 were randomized. Mortality follow-up through 1996 was obtained on the 4219 Registry patients enrolled before 1997 through the National Death Index. Crude mortality rates (mean±SD, follow-up, 16.9±11.5 months) were: VF cardiac arrest, 17.0% (n=1399, 238 deaths); Syncopal VT, 21.2% (n=598, 127 deaths); Symptomatic VT, 15.8% (n=1065, 168 deaths); Stable (asymptomatic) VT, 19.7% (n=497, 98 deaths); VT/VF with transient/correctable cause, 17.8% (n=270, 48 deaths); and Unexplained syncope, 12.3% (n=390, 48 deaths). Conclusions —Patients with seemingly lower-risk or unknown-risk VAs (asymptomatic VT, and VT/VF associated with a transient factor) have a (high) mortality similar to that of higher-risk, AVID-eligible VAs. The similar (and poor) prognosis of most patients with VT/VF suggests the need for reevaluation of a priori risk grouping and raises the question of the appropriate arrhythmia therapy for a broad range of patients.

This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit: