RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: It is generally considered that death is the only appropriate endpoint to evaluate interventions for preventing death; however, this belief may be based on the previous use of inappropriate or inadequate surrogates for death. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether rehospitalization following implementation of an intervention is a reasonable surrogate for death. METHODS AND RESULTS: The time from discharge following intervention to rehospitalization was evaluated for 997 patients discharged after baseline hospitalization in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Trial. The relationship between rehospitalization for various reasons and subsequent death was compared in the two treatment arms to assess the adequacy of rehospitalization as a surrogate for death. Included were rehospitalization for: any reason, a cardiac problem, a noncardiac problem, new or worsened congestive heart failure (CHF), an acute coronary syndrome, and a cardiac procedure. For all of the reasons except cardiac procedure, rehospitalization was associated with a substantially increased hazard for subsequent death. Rehospitalization for new or worsened CHF was most closely (that is, temporally) related to subsequent death and was the only reason for rehospitalization, which fully explained the treatment effect of implantable cardiac defibrillators compared with antiarrhythmic drugs on death. CONCLUSION: Rehospitalization is a significant risk factor for subsequent death. However, only rehospitalization for new or worsened CHF appears to be a potential surrogate for death in the setting of antiarrhythmic interventions.
Asunto(s)
Readmisión del Paciente , Taquicardia Ventricular/terapia , Fibrilación Ventricular/terapia , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/fisiopatología , Humanos , Pronóstico , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Factores de Riesgo , Volumen Sistólico , Taquicardia Ventricular/fisiopatología , Fibrilación Ventricular/fisiopatologíaRESUMEN
The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial II (CAST II) was a double-masked placebo-controlled randomized trial that compared the survival effects of moricizine to placebo in postmyocardial infarction arrhythmia patients. The quality-of-life outcome measures were designed prospectively for CAST and were previously shown to have high reliability and clinical discriminative validity. The CAST quality-of-life instrument detected significant differences between moricizine and placebo. In particular, moricizine was most strongly associated with inferior social activity and satisfaction scores (p = .014) and lower scores for overall contentment with life (p = .007). Moreover, the quality-of-life measures improved significantly for both the moricizine and placebo treatment groups after entry into the clinical trial. These results indicate that the CAST quality-of-life instrument is sensitive for assessing pharmacological therapies in the treatment of heart disease.
Asunto(s)
Arritmias Cardíacas/tratamiento farmacológico , Moricizina/uso terapéutico , Calidad de Vida , Anciano , Arritmias Cardíacas/fisiopatología , Femenino , Ventrículos Cardíacos/fisiopatología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Moricizina/efectos adversos , Efecto Placebo , Placebos , Estudios Prospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
In the Cardiac Arrhythmia Pilot Study (CAPS), patients early (6-60 days) after acute myocardial infarction (MI) with ventricular premature complexes (VPCs) of over 10 per hour were randomized to receive, unaware, therapy with one of four antiarrhythmic drugs (n = 402) or placebo (n = 100). Treatment success was defined as 70% or more decrease in VPC rate and 90% or more decrease in VPC runs. If the first active drug was ineffective, a second drug was given. If placebo was ineffective, a second placebo was given. To determine whether or not baseline clinical characteristics predict the response to antiarrhythmic therapy, 10 baseline variables were selected for investigation: age, prior MI, time from CAPS MI to randomization, ejection fraction, baseline VPC frequency, presence of runs (greater than or equal to 3 consecutive VPCs, greater than or equal to 100 beats/min), beta-blocker therapy, digitalis therapy, MI transmurality, and MI location. At the end of the first drug treatment, apparent treatment success in patients receiving placebo was associated on univariate analysis with absence of prior MI, with trends for younger age and Q wave MI, whereas in patients receiving active therapies, higher ejection fraction and younger age were associated with better suppression. In the encainide and flecainide treatments, where the greatest response was observed, absence of prior MI, higher ejection fraction, and younger age were associated with more successful treatment. In a multivariate analysis with these variables, ejection fraction and age remained significant for all active therapies, absence of prior MI and ejection fraction remained significant in the encainide and flecainide treatments, and absence of prior MI in the placebo treatment. Few variables except ejection fraction were associated with VPC suppression during the 1-year follow-up, and only lower ejection fraction and older age related to loss of long-term suppression. Thus, there are only a few independent baseline clinical variables (notably, ejection fraction) that substantially affect antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in suppressing VPCs in patients early after MI. Some variables, however, may be associated with spontaneous arrhythmia variability, leading to an apparent (placebo) response. These findings will be helpful in designing and interpreting treatment studies in patients after MI.