Literature DB >> 1688481

Treatment of ventricular arrhythmias by United States cardiologists: a survey before the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial results were available.

J Morganroth1, J T Bigger, J L Anderson.   

Abstract

To define the practice habits of United States cardiologists and the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, a random sample of 1,000 of 12,000 cardiologists was sent a pretested questionnaire. After follow-up procedures, 252 responded, of which 18% were academically-based, 29% were hospital-based and 53% were office-based. Attitudes about antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias were influenced by the presence and severity of cardiac disease, the presence and severity of cardiac disease, the presence of symptoms and the type of ventricular arrhythmias. In this survey, only 1% of cardiologists treated patients with asymptomatic ventricular premature complexes and no heart disease, but 17% treated such patients if unsustained ventricular tachycardia was present. The treatment rate among cardiologists increased to 38% when coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction was present in patients with asymptomatic ventricular premature complexes. The presence of any cardiac disease and symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias increased the treatment rate to 80 to 100%. Approximately 50% of responding physicians treated patients comparable to the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial study population with antiarrhythmic drugs. Beta blockers were the most common antiarrhythmic drug class chosen as the most appropriate initial therapy in new patients with ventricular arrhythmias. Whereas no cardiologists thought that amiodarone was appropriate to initiate in new patients with benign or potentially malignant ventricular arrhythmias, as many as 33 to 43% of cardiologists would use amiodarone for refractory patients with such arrhythmias, a response contradictory to the approved labeling for this drug. Less than one half of cardiologists recognize the high potential organ toxicity for quinidine, procainamide and tocainide.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 1688481     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(90)90023-t

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

Review 1.  Prescribing trends and pharmacoeconomic considerations in the treatment of arrhythmias. Focus on atrial fibrillation and flutter.

Authors:  B G Phillips; J L Bauman
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Clinical aspects of trial design: what can we expect from the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial?

Authors:  J T Bigger
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 3.727

Review 3.  Propafenone. A reappraisal of its pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic use in cardiac arrhythmias.

Authors:  H M Bryson; K J Palmer; H D Langtry; A Fitton
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Thirty years on quinidine for paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia.

Authors:  Arthur Hollman
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 18.000

Review 5.  The need for evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  D L Sackett; W M Rosenberg
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 18.000

Review 6.  Randomized Trials Versus Common Sense and Clinical Observation: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Authors:  Alexander C Fanaroff; Robert M Califf; Robert A Harrington; Christopher B Granger; John J V McMurray; Manesh R Patel; Deepak L Bhatt; Stephan Windecker; Adrian F Hernandez; C Michael Gibson; John H Alexander; Renato D Lopes
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 24.094

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.