Electrophysiologically guided amiodarone therapy versus the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after myocardial infarction: Results of long-term follow-up

Objectives We sought to compare the long-term survival rates of patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia after myocardial infarction (MI) who were treated according to the results of electrophysiological (EP) study either with amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Background Patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after MI are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, data comparing the long-term survival rates of patients treated with amiodarone or ICD, according to the results of EP testing, are lacking. Methods Patients underwent a first EP study at baseline and a second one after a loading dose of amiodarone of 14 ± 2.9 g. According to the results of the second EP study, patients were classified either as responders or non-responders to amiodarone; non-responders were eventually treated with an ICD. Results Eighty-four consecutive patients with MI (78 men; 21–77 years old; mean left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 36 ± 11%) were consecutively included. Forty-three patients (51%) were responders, and 41 patients (49%) were non-responders to amiodarone therapy. During a mean follow-up period of 63 ± 30 months, SCD and total mortality rates were significantly higher in the amiodarone-treated patients (p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Conclusions The long-term survival of patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias after MI, with depressed LV function, is significantly better with an ICD than with amiodarone therapy, even when stratified according to the results of the EP study. These patients should benefit from early ICD placement, and any previous amiodarone treatment seems to have no additional value.