ReviewDrugs1997
Antiarrhythmic therapies for the prevention of sudden cardiac death.
Review in Drugs, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intermediate versus hard end points in clinical trials on hypertension.Current hypertension reports · 2005Review
- Recent advances in the drug treatment of heart failure.Postgraduate medical journal · 1998Review
- Pharmacotherapy to reduce arrhythmic mortality.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite remarkable advances in cardiovascular therapeutics, sudden cardiac death remains a significant problem. In this review, data from clinical trials and other studies on antiarrhythmic therapies have been evaluated in order to determine effective strategies for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in high risk patients. Overall, routine prophylactic use of class I antiarrhythmic agents in high risk patients, mostly survivors of acute myocardial infarction, is associated with increased risk of death [61 trials, 23,486 patients: odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.27, p < 0.05]. Conversely, beta-blockers are associated with highly significant reductions in risk of death in postinfarction patients (56 trials, 53,521 patients: OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.87, p < 0.00001). Overall data from the amiodarone trials on high risk patients, including postinfarction patients, patients with congestive heart failure or survivors of cardiac arrest, suggest that this agent is effective in reducing the risk of death (14 trials, 5713 patients: OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95, p = 0.01) although further studies are needed to better define which types of patients will potentially benefit most from this agent. No benefits were seen with calcium channel blockers (26 trials, 21,644 patients: OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13, p = NS). The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is a promising option for high risk patients, but definition of its role awaits the completion of ongoing clinical trials. Since causes of sudden death are heterogeneous, the clinician should pursue a multifactorial approach to its prevention. Primary and secondary prevention of cardiac ischaemia, through the treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and maximising the use of aspirin, beta-blockers, lipid-lowering drugs, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors after acute myocardial infarction, should lead to a future decrease in the incidence of sudden cardiac death.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.