Back to Authors

Lee, Kerry L.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4263-555X

Mayo Clinic

Duke University

Citations 22

Impact of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator, Amiodarone, and Placebo on the Mode of Death in Stable Patients With Heart Failure
Packer, Douglas L. , Prutkin, Jordan M. , Hellkamp, Anne S., Mitchell, L. Brent, Bernstein, Robert, Wood, Freda, Boehmer, John , Carlson, Mark D., Frantz, Robert P. , McNulty, Steve E., Rogers, Joseph G. , Anderson, Jill, Johnson, George, Walsh, Mary Norine , Poole, Jeanne E. , Mark, Daniel B. , Lee, Kerry L. , Bardy, Gust H., Frantz, Robert P , Mark, Daniel B

Circulation | November 16, 2009 | Volume: 120 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 2170-2176

10.1161/circulationaha.109.853689 Get It

Background— The Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% on optimal medical therapy. Whether ICD therapy reduced sudden death caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias without affecting heart failure deaths in this population is unknown. Methods and Results— SCD-HeFT randomized 2521 subjects to placebo, amiodarone, or shock-only, single-lead ICD therapy. Over a median follow-up of 45.5 months, a total of 666 deaths occurred, which were reviewed by an Events Committee and initially categorized as cardiac or noncardiac. Cardiac deaths were further adjudicated as resulting from sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic, bradyarrhythmia, heart failure, or other cardiac causes. ICD therapy significantly reduced cardiac mortality compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.95) and tachyarrhythmia mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.59) and had no impact on mortality resulting from heart failure or noncardiac causes. The cardiac and tachyarrhythmia mortality reductions were evident in subjects with New York Heart Association class II but not in subjects with class III heart failure. The reduction in tachyarrhythmia mortality with ICD therapy was similar in subjects with ischemic and nonischemic disease. Compared with placebo, amiodarone had no significant effect on any mode of death. Conclusions— ICD therapy reduced cardiac mortality and sudden death presumed to be ventricular tachyarrhythmic in SCD-HeFT and had no effect on heart failure mortality. Amiodarone had no effect on all-cause mortality or its cause-specific components, except an increase in non-cardiac mortality in class III patients. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000609.
Effect of Implantable Defibrillators on Arrhythmic Events and Mortality in the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial
Lee, Kerry L. , Hafley, Gail E., Fisher, John D. , Gold, Michael R. , Prystowsky, Eric N. , Talajic, Mario , Josephson, Mark E., Packer, Douglas L. , Buxton, Alfred E.

Circulation | July 28, 2002 | Volume: 106 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 233-238

10.1161/01.cir.0000021920.73149.c3 Get It

Background — The Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) was designed to evaluate an antiarrhythmic treatment strategy, including drugs and implantable defibrillators (ICDs), guided by electrophysiological (EP) testing. We performed several statistical analyses to assess the contribution of defibrillators to the observed treatment benefit. Methods and Results — First, the effects of defibrillators were indirectly examined by comparing the randomized treatment arms (EP-guided therapy versus no antiarrhythmic therapy) within subgroups that varied according to ICD usage. Use of ICDs increased during the trial; hence, the randomized treatments were compared according to date of enrollment. There were also site-specific differences in ICD use; hence, the randomized arms were compared within groups of sites defined by level of ICD use. There was a distinct “dose response” in relation to ICD use. Where ICD use was high, EP-guided therapy produced significant reductions in arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest ( P <0.004). Where ICD use was low, there was no benefit of EP-guided therapy. Finally, outcomes of EP-guided therapy patients who received an ICD were directly compared with outcomes of other patients using the Cox proportional hazards model with receipt of an ICD as a time-dependent covariate. Adjusted for other prognostic factors, patients who received an ICD had risk reductions of >70% in arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest and >50% in total mortality ( P <0.001 for both end points). Conclusions — The benefit of EP-guided antiarrhythmic therapy observed in MUSTT was due to improved outcomes among patients who received an ICD but not among patients who received antiarrhythmic drugs.