A randomized clinical trial of the noninvasive and invasive approaches to drug therapy for ventricular tachycardia: Long-term follow-up of the calgary trial

Abstract

Individualized antiarrhythmic drug therapy for patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias may be selected by the noninvasive approach (suppression of spontaneous ventricular premature beats) or the invasive approach (suppression of ventricular tachyarrhythmias induced at an electrophysiologic study). There is controversy over which approach is superior. From a screened population of 124 patients with symptomatic ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, 57 patients with both frequent ventricular premature beats and inducible ventricular tachycardia at baseline were randomized to have chronic therapy selected by either the noninvasive or invasive approach. These patients have now been followed up for a minimum event-free period of 6.5 years. By intention-to-treat, therapy selected by the invasive approach prevented subsequent ventricular tachyarrhythmias better than that selected by the noninvasive approach (6-year probabilities of freedom from symptomatic sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence; noninvasive approach, 0.45 ± 0.10; invasive approach, 0.73 ± 0.09; P = .02). This advantage of the invasive approach was also evident for the outcome of any ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrence and for efficacy analyses involving only those patients with a drug-efficacy prediction. We hypothesize that the difference between these results and those of the ESVEM trial are caused, in part, by differences in the characteristics of the enrolled patients and differences in criteria used to define a predicted-effective therapy.