Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT): Drug testing and as-treated analysis

D. George Wyse, Mario Talajic, Gail E. Hafley, Alfred E. Buxton, L. Brent Mitchell, Teresa K. Kus, Douglas L Packer, William H. Kou, Robert Lemery, Peter Santucci, Denise Grimes, Kathleen Hickey, Carolyn Stevens, Steven N. Singh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Using data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), we examined the factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy and their impact on outcomes. BACKGROUND: The MUSTT examined the use of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) to guide antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with coronary arteriosclerosis, left ventricular dysfunction and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Trial outcomes may reflect factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy. METHODS: We compared subgroups of patients with inducible sustained VT randomized to PVS-guided antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 351), in particular those receiving PVS-guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n = 142) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy (controls, n = 353). RESULTS: "Effective" antiarrhythmic drug therapy (i.e., the term "effective" was used to denote therapy that resulted in noninducible VT or hemodynamically stable induced VT) was found for 142 of the 351 patients (43%), most often at the first or second PVS session (125/142, 88%). Mortality among the 142 patients did not differ from that among control patients. Of these 142 patients, the PVS end point was noninducibility in 91 patients and stable VT in 51 patients. Mortality did not differ between these two groups either, but arrhythmia was numerically more frequent in the PVS-induced stable VT group. Mortality was greatest in the few patients receiving propafenone (unadjusted p = 0.07, adjusted p = 0.14 vs. controls), but mortality with all agents did not differ from that of controls, even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Even when presenting the results as favorably as possible, we found no benefit with PVS-guided drug therapy in patients with clinical unsustained VT who had inducible sustained VT. These findings are unaltered by using different end points for PVS or considering the response to individual drugs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)344-351
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume38
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
Tachycardia
Ventricular Tachycardia
Drug Therapy
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Mortality
Propafenone
Left Ventricular Dysfunction
Therapeutics
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Coronary Artery Disease

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) : Drug testing and as-treated analysis. / Wyse, D. George; Talajic, Mario; Hafley, Gail E.; Buxton, Alfred E.; Mitchell, L. Brent; Kus, Teresa K.; Packer, Douglas L; Kou, William H.; Lemery, Robert; Santucci, Peter; Grimes, Denise; Hickey, Kathleen; Stevens, Carolyn; Singh, Steven N.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2001, p. 344-351.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wyse, DG, Talajic, M, Hafley, GE, Buxton, AE, Mitchell, LB, Kus, TK, Packer, DL, Kou, WH, Lemery, R, Santucci, P, Grimes, D, Hickey, K, Stevens, C & Singh, SN 2001, 'Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT): Drug testing and as-treated analysis', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 344-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01402-4
Wyse, D. George ; Talajic, Mario ; Hafley, Gail E. ; Buxton, Alfred E. ; Mitchell, L. Brent ; Kus, Teresa K. ; Packer, Douglas L ; Kou, William H. ; Lemery, Robert ; Santucci, Peter ; Grimes, Denise ; Hickey, Kathleen ; Stevens, Carolyn ; Singh, Steven N. / Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) : Drug testing and as-treated analysis. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2001 ; Vol. 38, No. 2. pp. 344-351.
@article{6573cbe71db647599193dcb6da8e8f75,
title = "Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT): Drug testing and as-treated analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Using data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), we examined the factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy and their impact on outcomes. BACKGROUND: The MUSTT examined the use of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) to guide antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with coronary arteriosclerosis, left ventricular dysfunction and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Trial outcomes may reflect factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy. METHODS: We compared subgroups of patients with inducible sustained VT randomized to PVS-guided antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 351), in particular those receiving PVS-guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n = 142) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy (controls, n = 353). RESULTS: {"}Effective{"} antiarrhythmic drug therapy (i.e., the term {"}effective{"} was used to denote therapy that resulted in noninducible VT or hemodynamically stable induced VT) was found for 142 of the 351 patients (43{\%}), most often at the first or second PVS session (125/142, 88{\%}). Mortality among the 142 patients did not differ from that among control patients. Of these 142 patients, the PVS end point was noninducibility in 91 patients and stable VT in 51 patients. Mortality did not differ between these two groups either, but arrhythmia was numerically more frequent in the PVS-induced stable VT group. Mortality was greatest in the few patients receiving propafenone (unadjusted p = 0.07, adjusted p = 0.14 vs. controls), but mortality with all agents did not differ from that of controls, even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Even when presenting the results as favorably as possible, we found no benefit with PVS-guided drug therapy in patients with clinical unsustained VT who had inducible sustained VT. These findings are unaltered by using different end points for PVS or considering the response to individual drugs.",
author = "Wyse, {D. George} and Mario Talajic and Hafley, {Gail E.} and Buxton, {Alfred E.} and Mitchell, {L. Brent} and Kus, {Teresa K.} and Packer, {Douglas L} and Kou, {William H.} and Robert Lemery and Peter Santucci and Denise Grimes and Kathleen Hickey and Carolyn Stevens and Singh, {Steven N.}",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01402-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "344--351",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT)

T2 - Drug testing and as-treated analysis

AU - Wyse, D. George

AU - Talajic, Mario

AU - Hafley, Gail E.

AU - Buxton, Alfred E.

AU - Mitchell, L. Brent

AU - Kus, Teresa K.

AU - Packer, Douglas L

AU - Kou, William H.

AU - Lemery, Robert

AU - Santucci, Peter

AU - Grimes, Denise

AU - Hickey, Kathleen

AU - Stevens, Carolyn

AU - Singh, Steven N.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Using data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), we examined the factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy and their impact on outcomes. BACKGROUND: The MUSTT examined the use of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) to guide antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with coronary arteriosclerosis, left ventricular dysfunction and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Trial outcomes may reflect factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy. METHODS: We compared subgroups of patients with inducible sustained VT randomized to PVS-guided antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 351), in particular those receiving PVS-guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n = 142) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy (controls, n = 353). RESULTS: "Effective" antiarrhythmic drug therapy (i.e., the term "effective" was used to denote therapy that resulted in noninducible VT or hemodynamically stable induced VT) was found for 142 of the 351 patients (43%), most often at the first or second PVS session (125/142, 88%). Mortality among the 142 patients did not differ from that among control patients. Of these 142 patients, the PVS end point was noninducibility in 91 patients and stable VT in 51 patients. Mortality did not differ between these two groups either, but arrhythmia was numerically more frequent in the PVS-induced stable VT group. Mortality was greatest in the few patients receiving propafenone (unadjusted p = 0.07, adjusted p = 0.14 vs. controls), but mortality with all agents did not differ from that of controls, even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Even when presenting the results as favorably as possible, we found no benefit with PVS-guided drug therapy in patients with clinical unsustained VT who had inducible sustained VT. These findings are unaltered by using different end points for PVS or considering the response to individual drugs.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Using data from the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT), we examined the factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy and their impact on outcomes. BACKGROUND: The MUSTT examined the use of programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) to guide antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with coronary arteriosclerosis, left ventricular dysfunction and asymptomatic, unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Trial outcomes may reflect factors used to select antiarrhythmic drug therapy. METHODS: We compared subgroups of patients with inducible sustained VT randomized to PVS-guided antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 351), in particular those receiving PVS-guided antiarrhythmic drug therapy (n = 142) versus no antiarrhythmic therapy (controls, n = 353). RESULTS: "Effective" antiarrhythmic drug therapy (i.e., the term "effective" was used to denote therapy that resulted in noninducible VT or hemodynamically stable induced VT) was found for 142 of the 351 patients (43%), most often at the first or second PVS session (125/142, 88%). Mortality among the 142 patients did not differ from that among control patients. Of these 142 patients, the PVS end point was noninducibility in 91 patients and stable VT in 51 patients. Mortality did not differ between these two groups either, but arrhythmia was numerically more frequent in the PVS-induced stable VT group. Mortality was greatest in the few patients receiving propafenone (unadjusted p = 0.07, adjusted p = 0.14 vs. controls), but mortality with all agents did not differ from that of controls, even after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Even when presenting the results as favorably as possible, we found no benefit with PVS-guided drug therapy in patients with clinical unsustained VT who had inducible sustained VT. These findings are unaltered by using different end points for PVS or considering the response to individual drugs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034900988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034900988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01402-4

DO - 10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01402-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 11499722

AN - SCOPUS:0034900988

VL - 38

SP - 344

EP - 351

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 2

ER -