Navigation in the mega-trials waters: reflections on the multicenter automatic defibrillator implantation trial and the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators study

Abstract

Today, cardiology seems to be driven by mega-trials and meta-analyses. Guidelines published by scientific and professional cardiovascular societies, such as the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology, follow the rules of evidence-based medicine. Such evidence is not always sufficiently conclusive to practice clinically helpful medicine. Sometimes, relatively small trials, such as the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial and the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators study, may be taken as guides for current clinical decisions and as inspiration for future investigations. Large mega-trials with a great lack of homogeneity among the recruited patients are less important for clinically helpful medicine than studies enrolling well-defined, high-risk patients. It is probably important to acknowledge that the best possible treatment for many patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias remains obscure. Among these situations are the following: (1) sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients without coronary artery disease; (2) sustained, nonsyncopal VT in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction; (3) post myocardial infarction survivors with an ejection fraction ≤35%, frequent/complex ventricular arrhythmias, depressed heart rate variability, and inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias during electrophysiologic study. Many studies are being conducted to add light where uncertainty exists, but probably only a few will contribute to the practice of clinically helpful medicine, although some will be used to produce meta-analysis to sustain evidence-based medicine.