Implantable cardioverter defibrillator compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in cardiac arrest survivors (the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg)

Abstract

In 1987, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study, was started in survivors of sudden cardiac death resulting from documented ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Through December 1991, 230 survivors (46 women, 184 men; mean age 57 ± 11 years) of cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias were randomly assigned to receive either oral propafenone (56 patients), amiodarone (56 patients), or metoprolol (59 patients) or to have an implantable defibrillator (59 patients) without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint of the study was total mortality. In March 1992, the propafenone arm of CASH was stopped because of excess mortality compared with the implantable defibrillator group. This article presents preliminary results of the comparison of implantable defibrillator therapy with propafenone therapy. A significantly higher incidence of total mortality, sudden death (12%), and cardiac arrest recurrence or sudden death (23%) was found in the propafenone group compared with the implantable defibrillator-treated patients (0%, p < 0.05). It was concluded that, in survivors of cardiac arrest, propafenone treatment is less effective than implantable defibrillator treatment.