Left ventricular hypertrophy and antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation: impact on mortality.

BACKGROUND: Despite sparse clinical data, current atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines favor amiodarone as a drug of choice for patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that patients with persistent AF and LVH on nonamiodarone antiarrhythmics have higher mortality compared to patients on amiodarone. METHODS: In an observational cohort analysis of patients who underwent cardioversion for AF, patients with LVH, defined as left ventricular wall thickness ≥1.4 cm, by echocardiogram prior to their first cardioversion, were included; clinical data, including antiarrhythmic drugs and ejection fraction (LVEF), were collected. Mortality, determined via the Social Security Death Index, was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models to determine whether antiarrhythmic drugs were associated with higher mortality. RESULTS: In 3,926 patients, echocardiographic wall thickness was available in 1,399 (age 66.8 ± 11.8 years, 67% male, LVEF 46 ± 15%, septum 1.3 ± 0.4, posterior wall 1.2 ± 0.2 cm), and 537 (38%) had LVH ≥1.4 cm. Among 537 patients with LVH, mean age was 67.5 ± 11.7 years, 76.4% were males, and mean LVEF was 48.3 ± 13.3%. Amiodarone was associated with lower survival (log rank P = 0.001), including after adjusting for age, LVEF, and coronary artery disease (P = 0.023). In propensity-score matched cohorts with LVH treated with no drugs, nonamiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs (non-AADs), or amiodarone (N = 65 each group), there was early lower survival in patients on amiodarone (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with persistent AF and LVH on non-AADs do not have higher mortality compared to patients on amiodarone. Importantly, these findings do not support amiodarone as a superior choice in patients with LVH.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator FDA safety advisories: Impact on patient mortality and morbidity.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisories. The impact of device advisories on mortality or patient care is poorly understood. Although estimated risks of ICD generators under advisory are low, dependency on ICD therapies to prevent sudden death justifies the assessment of long-term mortality. OBJECTIVE: To test the association of FDA advisory status with long-term mortality. METHODS: The study was a retrospective, single-center review of clinical outcomes, including device malfunctions, in patients from implantation to either explant or death. Patients with ICDs first implanted at Cleveland Clinic between August 1996 and May 2004 who became subject to FDA advisories on ICD generators were identified. Mortality was determined by using the Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: In 1644 consecutive patients receiving first ICD implants, 704 (43%) became subject to an FDA advisory, of which 172 (10.5%) were class I and 532 (32.3%) were class II. ICDs were explanted before advisory notifications in 14.0% of class I and 10.1% of class II advisories. Among ICDs under advisory, 28 (4.0%) advisory-related and 15 non-advisory- related malfunctions were documented. Over a median follow-up of 70 months, 814 patients died. Kaplan-Meier 5-year survival rate was 65.6% overall, and 64.2, 61.1, and 69.3% in patients with no, class I, and class II advisories, respectively (P = .17). CONCLUSIONS: ICD advisories impacted 43% of the patients. Advisory-related malfunctions affected 4% within the combined advisory group. Based on a conservative management strategy, ICDs under advisory were not associated with increased mortality over a background of significant disease-related mortality.