Amiodarone versus other pharmacological interventions for prevention of sudden cardiac death

Incidence, risk assessment and prevention of sudden cardiac death in cardiomyopathies

Cardiomyopathies are a significant contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, mainly due to the development of heart failure and increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Despite improvement in survival with contemporary treatment, SCD remains an important cause of mortality in cardiomyopathies. It occurs at a rate ranging between 0.15% and 0.7% per year (depending on the cardiomyopathy), which significantly surpasses SCD incidence in the age- and sex-matched general population. The risk of SCD is affected by multiple factors including the aetiology, genetic basis, age, sex, physical exertion, the extent of myocardial disease severity, conduction system abnormalities, and electrical instability, as measured by various metrics. Over the past decades, the knowledge on the mechanisms and risk factors for SCD has substantially improved, allowing for a better-informed risk stratification. However, unresolved issues still challenge the guidance of SCD prevention in patients with cardiomyopathies. In this review, we aim to provide an in-depth discussion of the contemporary concepts pertinent to understanding the burden, risk assessment and prevention of SCD in cardiomyopathies (dilated, non-dilated left ventricular, hypertrophic, arrhythmogenic right ventricular, and restrictive). The review first focuses on SCD incidence in cardiomyopathies and then summarizes established and emerging risk factors for life-threatening arrhythmias/SCD. Finally, it discusses validated approaches to the risk assessment and evidence-based measures for SCD prevention in cardiomyopathies, pointing to the gaps in evidence and areas of uncertainties that merit future clarification.

Risk and Protective Factors for Sudden Cardiac Death: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses

Background

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a global public health issue, accounting for 10–20% of deaths in industrialized countries. Identification of modifiable risk factors may reduce SCD incidence.

Methods

This umbrella review systematically evaluates published meta-analyses of observational and randomized controlled trials (RCT) for the association of modifiable risk and protective factors of SCD.

Results

Fifty-five meta-analyses were included in the final analysis, of which 31 analyzed observational studies and 24 analyzed RCTs. Five associations of meta-analyses of observational studies presented convincing evidence, including three risk factors [diabetes mellitus (DM), smoking, and early repolarization pattern (ERP)] and two protective factors [implanted cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and physical activity]. Meta-analyses of RCTs identified five protective factors with a high level of evidence: ICDs, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), beta-blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in patients with HF. On the contrary, other established, significant protective agents [i.e., amiodarone and statins along with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in heart failure (HF)], did not show credibility. Likewise, risk factors as left ventricular ejection fraction in HF, and left ventricular hypertrophy, non-sustain ventricular tachycardia, history of syncope or aborted SCD in pediatric patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, presented weak or no evidence.

Conclusions

Lifestyle risk factors (physical activity, smoking), comorbidities like DM, and electrocardiographic features like ERP constitute modifiable risk factors of SCD. Alternatively, the use of MRA, beta-blockers, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and ICD in patients with HF are credible protective factors. Further investigation targeted in specific populations will be important for reducing the burden of SCD.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020216363, PROSPERO CRD42020216363.

A Comparative Study Between Amiodarone and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Decreasing Mortality From Sudden Cardiac Death in High-Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is an unexpected death that occurs within one hour of symptom onset. In the United States, sudden cardiac death is considered the leading cause of natural death, accounting for 325,000 adult patients annually. SCD is more common in adult patients (above the mid-30s) and men. The risk factors that predict SCD are categorized into clinical, sociological, genetic, and psychological. To prevent the occurrence of SCD, several treatment options, especially antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), have been used.

A literature search from 2000 to 2022 was conducted on six electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The search query used Boolean expressions and keywords such as amiodarone, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, sudden cardiac death, cardiac arrest, arrhythmic death, and all-cause mortality. The articles identified from the literature search were screened using the eligibility criteria, resulting in eight articles relevant for inclusion in the review. A meta-analysis of data from six of the included studies showed that ICD was more effective in the reduction of SCD rates, with an SCD rate of 5.97% (n = 84/1,408) observed in the ICD group compared with an SCD rate of 11.81% (n = 168/1,423) observed in the amiodarone group. The results also show that ICD was more effective in reducing all-cause mortality compared with amiodarone (odds ratio (OR): 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.74; I² = 57%; P = 0.03).

ICD treatment of high-risk patients was more effective in reducing SCD and all-cause mortality rates compared with amiodarone treatment. There is evidence that amiodarone can be used as an adjuvant treatment option, especially for patients who are not eligible for ICD treatment and those who face more adverse events. Evidence has also shown that using amiodarone with ICD treatment significantly improves survival rates compared to ICD treatment only.

Pharmacologic Management for Ventricular Arrhythmias: Overview of Anti-Arrhythmic Drugs

Ventricular arrhythmias (Vas) are a life-threatening condition and preventable cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD). With the increased utilization of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD), the focus of VA management has shifted toward reduction of morbidity from VAs and ICD therapies. Anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) can be an important adjunct therapy in the treatment of recurrent VAs. In the treatment of VAs secondary to structural heart disease, amiodarone remains the most well studied and current guideline-directed pharmacologic therapy. Beta blockers also serve as an important adjunct and are a largely underutilized medication with strong evidentiary support. In patients with defined syndromes in structurally normal hearts, AADs can offer tailored therapies in prevention of SCD and improvement in quality of life. Further clinical trials are warranted to investigate the role of newer therapeutic options and for the direct comparison of established AADs.

Oral procainamide as pharmacological treatment of recurrent and refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias: A single-center experience

Background

Antiarrhythmic therapy for recurrent ventricular arrhythmias in patients who have undergone catheter ablation, and in whom amiodarone and/or beta-blockers were ineffective or contraindicated, is a controversial issue.

Objective

The present study sought to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of oral procainamide in patients with recurrent ventricular arrhythmias when the standard therapy strategy had failed.

Methods

All patients treated with procainamide for recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in our institution between January 2010 and May 2019 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the total number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions after the beginning of procainamide therapy. Secondary endpoints were the total number of VTs and VFs recorded on the ICDs' controls and discontinuation of therapy. The events occurring during procainamide treatment were compared with a matched-duration period before the initiation of therapy with procainamide. Patients therefore served as self-controls.

Results

A total of 34 consecutive patients (32 male, 94.1%; mean age 74.4 ± 9.7 years) were included in the retrospective analysis. The mean time of procainamide treatment was 12.9 ± 13.7 months (median 9 [2-20] months). The mean dose of procainamide was 1207 ± 487 mg/day. Procainamide therapy significantly decreased ICD interventions (median 5 [0-22.5] vs 15.5 [3-32.25], P < .05). Procainamide also decreased the total number of VT/VF episodes (median 5.5 [0.75-30] vs 19 [7.5-30], P < .05). Only 3 patients (8.8%) presented severe side effects (dyspnea or hypotension), requiring discontinuation of therapy.

Conclusion

Oral procainamide was associated with a significant decrease in ICD therapies and ventricular arrhythmias, showing an acceptable profile of tolerability.

Optimization of premedication of patients with arterial hypertension and severe ventricular rhythm disturbances with Amiodarone-associated thyrotoxicosis

Introduction: The effectiveness of premedication of patients with arterial hypertension and severe ventricular rhythm disturbances against the background of Amiodarone-associated thyrotoxicosis, high anxiety and cyclothymiae disorders should be based on the pharmacological positions of the need to reduce the risk of dangerous adverse cardiovascular reactions.

Materials and methods: During the research, a clinical group of 114 patients with arterial hypertension, severe ventricular arrhythmias and Amiodarone-associated type I thyrotoxicosis was formed: four subgroups were identified. In Subgroup 1 (n=22), no premedication was given. In Subgroup 2 (n=32), premedication was given with Diazepam and magnesium sulfate in a prolonged mode. In Subgroup 3 (n=30), the patients received Diazepam the day before surgery. In Subgroup 4 (n=30), premedication was given with Midazolam. A dynamic assessment of the severity of anxiety, depression, sedation and daily monitoring of blood pressure and ECG were carried out.

Results and discussion: After surgery, in Subgroup 1, the level of anxiety and depression increased. In all other Subgroups, regardless of the type of premedication, the use of benzodiazepines was accompanied by a decrease in the level of anxiety after surgery. A decrease in pressure load and an increase in the stability of the parameters of systemic hemodynamics were registered in Subgroup 2 of patients, whereas in Subgroup 4 of patients, the pressure load increased while limiting the differences in blood pressure values during the day. After surgery, in Subgroup 2, cardiac rhythm disturbances were less common; in Subgroup 3, the structure of rhythmogenesis disturbances in the heart almost did not change, and in Subgroup 4, there was an unfavorable trend of an increase in the frequency of supraventricular, single and group ventricular extrasystoles.

Conclusion: The prolonged premedication with long-acting benzodiazepines and magnesium preparations in patients with arterial hypertension, ventricular rhythm disturbances against the background of Amiodarone-associated thyrotoxicosis reduces the level of anxiety, as well as the risk of developing cardiovascular complications and instability of systemic hemodynamics.

Amiodarone-Induced Thyrotoxicosis - Literature Review & Clinical Update

Amiodarone is widely used in treating atrial and ventricular arrhythmias; however, due to its high iodine concentration, the chronic use of the drug can induce thyroid disorders. Amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis (AIT) can decompensate and exacerbate underlying cardiac abnormalities, leading to increased morbidity and mortality, especially in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30%. AIT cases are classified into two subtypes that guide therapeutic management. The risks and benefits of maintaining the amiodarone must be evaluated individually, and the therapeutic decision should be taken jointly by cardiologists and endocrinologists. Type 1 AIT treatment is similar to that of spontaneous hyperthyroidism, using antithyroid drugs (methimazole and propylthiouracil) at high doses. Type 1 AIT is more complicated since it has proportionally higher recurrences or even non-remission, and definitive treatment is recommended (total thyroidectomy or radioiodine). Type 2 AIT is generally self-limited, yet due to the high mortality associated with thyrotoxicosis in cardiac patients, the treatment should be implemented for faster achievement of euthyroidism. Furthermore, in well-defined cases of type 2 AIT, the treatment with corticosteroids is more effective than treatment with antithyroid drugs. In severe cases, regardless of subtype, immediate restoration of euthyroidism through total thyroidectomy should be considered before the patient progresses to excessive clinical deterioration, as delayed surgery indication is associated with increased mortality.

Amiodarone for arrhythmia in patients with Chagas disease: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

Background

Chagas disease is a neglected chronic condition caused by Trypanosoma cruzi, with high prevalence and burden in Latin America. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy, and amiodarone has been widely used for this purpose. The aim of our study was to assess the effect of amiodarone in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy.

Methodology

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS up to January 2018. Data from randomized and observational studies evaluating amiodarone use in Chagas cardiomyopathy were included. Two reviewers selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Overall quality of evidence was accessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Principal findings

We included 9 studies (3 before-after studies, 5 case series and 1 randomized controlled trial). Two studies with a total of 38 patients had the full dataset, allowing individual patient data (IPD) analysis. In 24-hour Holter, amiodarone reduced the number of ventricular tachycardia episodes in 99.9% (95%CI 99.8%-100%), ventricular premature beats in 93.1% (95%CI 82%-97.4%) and the incidence of ventricular couplets in 79% (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.11–0.39). Studies not included in the IPD analysis showed a reduction of ventricular premature beats (5 studies), ventricular tachycardia (6 studies) and ventricular couplets (1 study). We pooled the incidence of adverse side effects with random effects meta-analysis; amiodarone was associated with corneal microdeposits (61.1%, 95%CI 19.0–91.3, 5 studies), gastrointestinal events (16.1%, 95%CI 6.61–34.2, 3 studies), sinus bradycardia (12.7%, 95%CI 3.71–35.5, 6 studies), dermatological events (10.6%, 95%CI 4.77–21.9, 3 studies) and drug discontinuation (7.68%, 95%CI 4.17–13.7, 5 studies). Quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Conclusions

Amiodarone is effective in reducing ventricular arrhythmias, but there is no evidence for hard endpoints (sudden death, hospitalization). Although our findings support the use of amiodarone, it is important to balance the potential benefits and harms at the individual level for decision-making.

Chagas disease is a chronic neglected tropical disease, with high prevalence and burden in Latin America. About 30% of chronically infected patients develop Chagas cardiomyopathy. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy and treatment approaches include medications, resynchronization therapy, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Studies published from 1980 to 1990 have evaluated the effect of amiodarone. According to our systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis, amiodarone reduced ventricular tachycardia, ventricular premature beats and incidence of ventricular couplets. Although the strong evidence of clinical benefit with arrhythmia reduction, this information should be interpreted with caution, since arrhythmia is a surrogate outcome and since its clinical impact on death and hospitalization reduction over time is not clear. Little information was identified related to hard endpoints. Regarding side effects, our systematic review observed that amiodarone was associated with corneal microdeposits, gastrointestinal events, sinus bradycardia, dermatological events, pneumonitis, hypothyroidism and drug discontinuation. The currently available evidence shows that amiodarone seems to be an effective antiarrhythmic drug for patients with Chagas disease, especially in settings where an implantable cardioverter defibrillator is not available or affordable, but that a balance between potential benefits and harms at the individual level is needed.

Effectiveness of drug interventions to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To summarise and synthesise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of drug interventions to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2017; manual search of references of included studies for potentially relevant reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

We reviewed the effectiveness of drug interventions for SCD and all-cause mortality prevention in patients with HFrEF. We included overviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), antialdosterones or mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, amiodarone, other antiarrhythmic drugs, combined ARB/neprilysin inhibitors, statins and fish oil supplementation.

REVIEW METHODS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the reviews and the quality of evidence for the primary studies for each drug intervention, using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE), respectively.

RESULTS

We identified 41 reviews. Beta-blockers, antialdosterones and combined ARB/neprilysin inhibitors appeared effective to prevent SCD and all-cause mortality. ACE-i significantly reduced all-cause mortality but not SCD events. ARBs and statins were ineffective where antiarrhythmic drugs and omega-3 fatty acids had unclear evidence of effectiveness for prevention of SCD and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive overview of systematic reviews confirms that beta-blockers, antialdosterone agents and combined ARB/neprilysin inhibitors are effective on SCD prevention but not ACE-i or ARBs. In patients with high risk of SCD, an alternative therapeutic strategy should be explored in future research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017067442.

Amiodarone versus other pharmacological interventions for prevention of sudden cardiac death

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Seventeen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).For primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.Compared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.For secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).Amiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.It is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.