Skip Navigation

Europace 2004 6(4):257-266; doi:10.1016/j.eupc.2004.03.009
© 2004 by European Society of Cardiology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lau, E.W.
Right arrow Articles by Garratt, C.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lau, E.W.
Right arrow Articles by Garratt, C.J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The midlands trial of empirical amiodarone versus electrophysiology-guided interventions and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (MAVERIC): a multi-centre prospective randomised clinical trial on the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death

E.W. Laua, M.J. Griffitha,*, R.K. Pathmanathanb, G.A. Ngb, M.M. Clunea, J. Cooperb, H.J. Marshalla, P.R. Forseya, P.J. Staffordb, R.G. Grayc, J.D. Skehanb and C.J. Garrattd

aQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham B15 2TH, UK; bGlenfield Hospital Leicester, UK; cClinical Trial Unit, University of Birmingham Birmingham, UK; dManchester Royal Infirmary Manchester, UK

AIMS: MAVERIC was a randomised clinical trial designed to test the possibility of prospectively identifying patients who would benefit most from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) by electrophysiology (EP) study in the context of secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) through comparing EP-guided interventions (anti-arrhythmic drugs, coronary revascularization, and ICD) against empirical amiodarone therapy.

METHODS: Two hundred and fourteen survivors of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) or SCD were randomized to either treatment strategy, pre-stratified for haemodynamic status at index event, and followed up for a median of 5 years.

RESULTS: Of the 106 amiodarone arm patients, 89 (84%) received the drug and 5 (5%) received an ICD after crossing over. Of the 108 EP arm patients, 31 (29%) received an ICD, 46 (43%) received anti-arrhythmic drugs only (mainly amiodarone or sotalol) and 18 (17%) received coronary revascularization but no ICD. No significant differences in survival or arrhythmia recurrence existed between the two treatment arms after 6 years. However, ICD recipients had a lower mortality than non-ICD recipients, regardless of allocated treatment (hazard ratio = 0.54, p=0.0391).

CONCLUSIONS: Prospective selection of patients to receive the ICD by EP study did not improve survival compared with empirical amiodarone therapy among survivors of VT, VF or SCD, whereas ICD implantation improved survival regardless of allocated treatment. On this basis, routine EP study has no role in the management of such patients, who should be offered empirical ICD therapy according to the results of other secondary prevention ICD trials.

Key Words: ICD, electrophysiology, amiodarone, sudden cardiac death


*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-121-627-2043; fax: +44-121-414-1045. E-mail address: michael.griffith{at}uhb.nhs.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Psychosom. Med.Home page
F. S. Luyster, J. W. Hughes, D. Waechter, and R. Josephson
Resource loss predicts depression and anxiety among patients treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
Psychosom Med, September 1, 2006; 68(5): 794 - 800.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
Z. Goldberger and R. Lampert
Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Expanding Indications and Technologies
JAMA, February 15, 2006; 295(7): 809 - 818.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.