prevention of sudden death clinical trials results

Combined CRT + ICD versus CRT
COMPANION (CRT+ICD vs CRT), 2004
ICD+CRT
versus
CRT
patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and QRS duration >120 ms open
Follow-up duration: 16 months
Combined CRT + ICD versus ICD alone
MIRACLE-ICD-II, 2004
ICD+CRT (and optimalmedical treatment)
versus
ICD (optimalmedical treatment)
NYHA class II heart failure patients on optimal medical therapy with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <=35%, a QRS >=130 ms, and a class I indication for an ICDdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
MIRACLE-ICD-I, 2003
ICD+CRT (plus optimal medical treatment)
versus
ICD (plus optimal medical treatment)
patients with NYHA class III or IV congestive HF despite appropriate medical managementdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
CONTAK-CD , 2003
ICD+CRT
versus
ICD (no CRT)
patients with symptomatic heart failure, intraventricular conduction delay, and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias open
Follow-up duration: 4.7 months
Combined CRT + ICD versus no CRT
RethinQ, 2007
NCT00132977
cardiac-resynchronization therapy ICD+CRT
versus
no cardiac-resynchronization therapy
patients with standard indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, NYHA 3, EF<35%, QRS<130ms, and evidence of mechanical dyssynchronyopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
USA
Combined CRT + ICD versus no CRT no ICD
AMIOVIRT, 2003
ICD
versus
amiodarone as medical therapy
patients with non ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and Nonsustained ventricular tachycardiaopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
COMPANION (CRT+ICD vs MT), 2004
ICD+CRT
versus
no ICT no CRT, optimized medical therapy
patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and QRS duration >120 ms open
Follow-up duration: 16 months
CRT versus no CRT
MUSTIC-SR, 2001
CRT Medtronic/ELA medical
versus
CRT off
patients with severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class III) due to chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, with normal sinus rhythm and a duration of the QRS interval of more than 150 msecSingle blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
MIRACLE, 2002
CRT Medtronic
versus
CRT off
patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of heart failure associated with an ejection fraction of 35 percent or less and a QRS interval of 130 msec Bouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
PATH-CHF, 2002
CRT
versus
no CRT
patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delayopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
MUSTIC AF, 2002
CRT Medtronic/ELA medical
versus
CRT off
patients with NYHA class III left ventricular systolic dysfunction, chronic atrial fibrillation, slow ventricular rate necessitating permanent ventricular pacing, and a wide QRS complex (paced width >or=200 ms)Single blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
CARE-HF, 2005
CRT medtronic
versus
no CRT
patients with NYHA class III or IV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony open
Follow-up duration: 29.4 months
RD-CHF, 2003
CRT
versus
no CRT
patients with advanced heart failure
COMPANION (CRT vs MT), 2004
CRT guidant
versus
no CRT, optimized medical therapy
patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=35% and QRS duration >120 msopen
Follow-up duration: 16 months
Garrigue, 2002
CRT
versus
no CRT
patients with chronic atrial fibrillation, severe heart failure and QRS prolongation of > or = 140 ms single blind
ICD versus no ICD
Dutch trial, 1995
ICD
versus
conventional therapy
survivors of cardiac arrest caused by old myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 2 y
MADIT, 1996
ICD
versus
anti arrhythmic drugs as conventional therapy
patients with MI >=3 wk before entry and EF <=0.35 and Asymptomatic unsustained VT unrelated to an acute MI with inducible VT not suppressed after iv procainamideopen
Follow-up duration: 27 months
MADIT-II, 2002
implantable cardiac defibrillator
versus
no ICD, optimized medical therapy
patients with a prior myocardial infarction and EF<=0.30open
Follow-up duration: 20 months
CASH, 2000
ICD
versus
antiarrhythmic agents (amiodarone and metoprolol)
secondary prevention: survivors of cardiac arrest secondary to documented ventricular arrhythmiasopen
Follow-up duration: 57 months
CAT, 2002
ICD
versus
no iCD, conventional therapy
patients with recent onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF <=0.30open
Follow-up duration: 66 months
DEFINITE, 2004
ICD
versus
no ICD, standard medical therapy
patients with non ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <0.36 and Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia or frequent premature ventricular complexesopen
Follow-up duration: 29 months
SCD-HeFT (ICD vs placebo), 2005
NCT00000609
ICD
versus
optimized medical therapy
patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF<=0.35open
Follow-up duration: 45.5 months
AVID, 1997
NCT00000531
ICD
versus
class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone
secondary prevention: patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardiaopen
Follow-up duration: 18.2 months
CIDS, 2000
ICD
versus
amiodarone
secondary prevention: patients with resuscitated VF or VT or with unmonitored syncope
Follow-up duration: 36 months
CABG-patch, 1997
NCT00000540
ICD
versus
control
patients undergoing CABG with EF <=0.35 and Abnormal signal-averaged electrocardiogramopen
Follow-up duration: 32 months
DINAMIT, 2004
implantable cardioverter defibrillator
versus
no ICD, optimized medical therapy
patients within 6–40 days of myocardial infarct ischemic with EF<=0.35 and cardiac autonomic modulation (depressed heart rate variability or increased mean 24-hour heart rate)open
Follow-up duration: 30 months
MUSIT, 1999
ICD or drugs as indicated by electrophysiologic testing
versus
no antiarrhythmic therapy
patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF<=0.40 and Inducible, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmiasopen
Follow-up duration: median 39 months
SCD-HeFT (ICD vs amiodarone), 2005
NCT00000609
ICD
versus
optimized medical therapy with amiodarone
patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF<=0.35open
Follow-up duration: 45.5 months