Significance and incidence of concordance of drug efficacy predictions by holter monitoring and electrophysiological study in the ESVEM trial

M. J. Reiter, D. E. Mann, J. E. Reiffel, E. Hahn, V. Hartz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Selection of antiarrhythmic therapy may be based on either suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias assessed by Holter monitoring or by suppression of inducible ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiological study. This study examines the frequency and significance of concordance of these two approaches in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Methods and Results: Twenty-four-hour Holter monitoring was performed in patients randomized to the electrophysiology limb of the ESVEM study at the time of the first drug trial and al the time of an effective drug trial. Holter monitors were available in 65% (146/226) of patients at the time of the first drug trial and in 93% (100/108) of patients at the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy. There were no clinical differences between patients who had and those who did not have a Holter monitor. At the time of the first drug trial, concordance of Holter and electrophysiological predictions of drug efficacy was observed in 46% of patients (both techniques predicted efficacy in 23%; neither predicted efficacy in 23%). Discordant results were observed in 54% (Holter suppression without electrophysiological suppression in 44%; electrophysiological suppression without Holter suppression in 10%). At the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy, 68 of the 100 patients without inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias also had suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias on the Holter recorded at the lime of the electrophysiological study. Neither arrhythmia recurrence nor mortality was significantly different in patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with only suppression of inducible arrhythmias. Comparison of patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias with the 188 patients in the Holter limb, in whom efficacy was predicted by Holter monitoring only, revealed no difference in outcome. Conclusions: In this population, (1) there is frequent discordance in prediction of drug efficacy and inefficacy between electrophysiological study and Holter monitoring; (2) a requirement to fulfill both Holter and electrophysiological efficacy criteria reduces the number of patients with an efficacy prediction; and (3) suppression of both spontaneous ventricular ectopy and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias does not identify a group with better outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1988-1995
Number of pages8
JournalCirculation
Volume91
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 1995

Fingerprint

Ambulatory Electrocardiography
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Incidence
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Electrophysiology
Tachycardia
Extremities
Recurrence

Keywords

  • antiarrhythmic agents
  • arrhythmia
  • electrophysiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

@article{02194d59d7f04adc99d589b443d067ed,
title = "Significance and incidence of concordance of drug efficacy predictions by holter monitoring and electrophysiological study in the ESVEM trial",
abstract = "Background: Selection of antiarrhythmic therapy may be based on either suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias assessed by Holter monitoring or by suppression of inducible ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiological study. This study examines the frequency and significance of concordance of these two approaches in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Methods and Results: Twenty-four-hour Holter monitoring was performed in patients randomized to the electrophysiology limb of the ESVEM study at the time of the first drug trial and al the time of an effective drug trial. Holter monitors were available in 65{\%} (146/226) of patients at the time of the first drug trial and in 93{\%} (100/108) of patients at the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy. There were no clinical differences between patients who had and those who did not have a Holter monitor. At the time of the first drug trial, concordance of Holter and electrophysiological predictions of drug efficacy was observed in 46{\%} of patients (both techniques predicted efficacy in 23{\%}; neither predicted efficacy in 23{\%}). Discordant results were observed in 54{\%} (Holter suppression without electrophysiological suppression in 44{\%}; electrophysiological suppression without Holter suppression in 10{\%}). At the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy, 68 of the 100 patients without inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias also had suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias on the Holter recorded at the lime of the electrophysiological study. Neither arrhythmia recurrence nor mortality was significantly different in patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with only suppression of inducible arrhythmias. Comparison of patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias with the 188 patients in the Holter limb, in whom efficacy was predicted by Holter monitoring only, revealed no difference in outcome. Conclusions: In this population, (1) there is frequent discordance in prediction of drug efficacy and inefficacy between electrophysiological study and Holter monitoring; (2) a requirement to fulfill both Holter and electrophysiological efficacy criteria reduces the number of patients with an efficacy prediction; and (3) suppression of both spontaneous ventricular ectopy and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias does not identify a group with better outcome.",
keywords = "antiarrhythmic agents, arrhythmia, electrophysiology",
author = "Reiter, {M. J.} and Mann, {D. E.} and Reiffel, {J. E.} and E. Hahn and V. Hartz",
year = "1995",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/01.CIR.91.7.1988",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "1988--1995",
journal = "Circulation",
issn = "0009-7322",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

Significance and incidence of concordance of drug efficacy predictions by holter monitoring and electrophysiological study in the ESVEM trial. / Reiter, M. J.; Mann, D. E.; Reiffel, J. E.; Hahn, E.; Hartz, V.

In: Circulation, Vol. 91, No. 7, 01.04.1995, p. 1988-1995.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Significance and incidence of concordance of drug efficacy predictions by holter monitoring and electrophysiological study in the ESVEM trial

AU - Reiter, M. J.

AU - Mann, D. E.

AU - Reiffel, J. E.

AU - Hahn, E.

AU - Hartz, V.

PY - 1995/4/1

Y1 - 1995/4/1

N2 - Background: Selection of antiarrhythmic therapy may be based on either suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias assessed by Holter monitoring or by suppression of inducible ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiological study. This study examines the frequency and significance of concordance of these two approaches in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Methods and Results: Twenty-four-hour Holter monitoring was performed in patients randomized to the electrophysiology limb of the ESVEM study at the time of the first drug trial and al the time of an effective drug trial. Holter monitors were available in 65% (146/226) of patients at the time of the first drug trial and in 93% (100/108) of patients at the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy. There were no clinical differences between patients who had and those who did not have a Holter monitor. At the time of the first drug trial, concordance of Holter and electrophysiological predictions of drug efficacy was observed in 46% of patients (both techniques predicted efficacy in 23%; neither predicted efficacy in 23%). Discordant results were observed in 54% (Holter suppression without electrophysiological suppression in 44%; electrophysiological suppression without Holter suppression in 10%). At the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy, 68 of the 100 patients without inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias also had suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias on the Holter recorded at the lime of the electrophysiological study. Neither arrhythmia recurrence nor mortality was significantly different in patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with only suppression of inducible arrhythmias. Comparison of patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias with the 188 patients in the Holter limb, in whom efficacy was predicted by Holter monitoring only, revealed no difference in outcome. Conclusions: In this population, (1) there is frequent discordance in prediction of drug efficacy and inefficacy between electrophysiological study and Holter monitoring; (2) a requirement to fulfill both Holter and electrophysiological efficacy criteria reduces the number of patients with an efficacy prediction; and (3) suppression of both spontaneous ventricular ectopy and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias does not identify a group with better outcome.

AB - Background: Selection of antiarrhythmic therapy may be based on either suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias assessed by Holter monitoring or by suppression of inducible ventricular arrhythmias during electrophysiological study. This study examines the frequency and significance of concordance of these two approaches in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Methods and Results: Twenty-four-hour Holter monitoring was performed in patients randomized to the electrophysiology limb of the ESVEM study at the time of the first drug trial and al the time of an effective drug trial. Holter monitors were available in 65% (146/226) of patients at the time of the first drug trial and in 93% (100/108) of patients at the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy. There were no clinical differences between patients who had and those who did not have a Holter monitor. At the time of the first drug trial, concordance of Holter and electrophysiological predictions of drug efficacy was observed in 46% of patients (both techniques predicted efficacy in 23%; neither predicted efficacy in 23%). Discordant results were observed in 54% (Holter suppression without electrophysiological suppression in 44%; electrophysiological suppression without Holter suppression in 10%). At the time of an electrophysiology study predicting drug efficacy, 68 of the 100 patients without inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias also had suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias on the Holter recorded at the lime of the electrophysiological study. Neither arrhythmia recurrence nor mortality was significantly different in patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with only suppression of inducible arrhythmias. Comparison of patients with suppression of both inducible and spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias with the 188 patients in the Holter limb, in whom efficacy was predicted by Holter monitoring only, revealed no difference in outcome. Conclusions: In this population, (1) there is frequent discordance in prediction of drug efficacy and inefficacy between electrophysiological study and Holter monitoring; (2) a requirement to fulfill both Holter and electrophysiological efficacy criteria reduces the number of patients with an efficacy prediction; and (3) suppression of both spontaneous ventricular ectopy and inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias does not identify a group with better outcome.

KW - antiarrhythmic agents

KW - arrhythmia

KW - electrophysiology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028946320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028946320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/01.CIR.91.7.1988

DO - 10.1161/01.CIR.91.7.1988

M3 - Article

C2 - 7895357

AN - SCOPUS:0028946320

VL - 91

SP - 1988

EP - 1995

JO - Circulation

JF - Circulation

SN - 0009-7322

IS - 7

ER -