BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo resuscitation from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias often have significant coronary artery disease, and revascularization has been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia and cardiac arrest episodes in this patient population. The magnitude of benefit attributed to revascularization has varied by study, and the use of adjunct implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has not been well-characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry included 3117 patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, of whom 2321 (77%) had documented coronary artery disease and 281 (17%) underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting revascularization procedure after the index event. Patients who underwent a revascularization procedure were younger, had a lower incidence rate of prior myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmia, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, had less congestive heart failure, and were more likely to have had ventricular fibrillation as the presenting arrhythmia. Patients who underwent revascularization had a better survival rate than did those who did not undergo such a procedure after the index event, and adjustment for differing baseline patient covariates did not alter the relative survival rate benefit. Further, ICD implantation offered a similar survival rate advantage to those patients in the AVID registry with coronary artery disease independent of revascularization. CONCLUSION: Coronary revascularization in the AVID registry patients with coronary artery disease effected a survival rate benefit that was not attributable to differences in baseline patient characteristics. The benefit of ICD on patient survival rate was not attenuated by a revascularization procedure.
BACKGROUND:Patients who undergo resuscitation from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias often have significant coronary artery disease, and revascularization has been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia and cardiac arrest episodes in this patient population. The magnitude of benefit attributed to revascularization has varied by study, and the use of adjunct implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has not been well-characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry included 3117 patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, of whom 2321 (77%) had documented coronary artery disease and 281 (17%) underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting revascularization procedure after the index event. Patients who underwent a revascularization procedure were younger, had a lower incidence rate of prior myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmia, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, had less congestive heart failure, and were more likely to have had ventricular fibrillation as the presenting arrhythmia. Patients who underwent revascularization had a better survival rate than did those who did not undergo such a procedure after the index event, and adjustment for differing baseline patient covariates did not alter the relative survival rate benefit. Further, ICD implantation offered a similar survival rate advantage to those patients in the AVID registry with coronary artery disease independent of revascularization. CONCLUSION: Coronary revascularization in the AVID registry patients with coronary artery disease effected a survival rate benefit that was not attributable to differences in baseline patient characteristics. The benefit of ICD on patient survival rate was not attenuated by a revascularization procedure.