Public-access defibrillation and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low. It is not known whether this rate will increase if laypersons are trained to attempt defibrillation with the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). METHODS: We conducted a prospective, community-based, multicenter clinical trial in which we randomly assigned community units (e.g., shopping malls and apartment complexes) to a structured and monitored emergency-response system involving lay volunteers trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone or in CPR and the use of AEDs. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: More than 19,000 volunteer responders from 993 community units in 24 North American regions participated. The two study groups had similar unit and volunteer characteristics. Patients with treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the two groups were similar in age (mean, 69.8 years), proportion of men (67 percent), rate of cardiac arrest in a public location (70 percent), and rate of witnessed cardiac arrest (72 percent). No inappropriate shocks were delivered. There were more survivors to hospital discharge in the units assigned to have volunteers trained in CPR plus the use of AEDs (30 survivors among 128 arrests) than there were in the units assigned to have volunteers trained only in CPR (15 among 107; P=0.03; relative risk, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.07 to 3.77); there were only 2 survivors in residential complexes. Functional status at hospital discharge did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Training and equipping volunteers to attempt early defibrillation within a structured response system can increase the number of survivors to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in public locations. Trained laypersons can use AEDs safely and effectively.

A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: There are two approaches to the treatment of atrial fibrillation: one is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm, and the other is the use of rate-controlling drugs, allowing atrial fibrillation to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, multicenter comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high risk of stroke or death. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS: A total of 4060 patients (mean [+/-SD] age, 69.7+/-9.0 years) were enrolled in the study; 70.8 percent had a history of hypertension, and 38.2 percent had coronary artery disease. Of the 3311 patients with echocardiograms, the left atrium was enlarged in 64.7 percent and left ventricular function was depressed in 26.0 percent. There were 356 deaths among the patients assigned to rhythm-control therapy and 310 deaths among those assigned to rate-control therapy (mortality at five years, 23.8 percent and 21.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.34]; P=0.08). More patients in the rhythm-control group than in the rate-control group were hospitalized, and there were more adverse drug effects in the rhythm-control group as well. In both groups, the majority of strokes occurred after warfarin had been stopped or when the international normalized ratio was subtherapeutic. CONCLUSIONS: Management of atrial fibrillation with the rhythm-control strategy offers no survival advantage over the rate-control strategy, and there are potential advantages, such as a lower risk of adverse drug effects, with the rate-control strategy. Anticoagulation should be continued in this group of high-risk patients.

Relationship between rehospitalization and future death in patients treated for potentially lethal arrhythmia.

INTRODUCTION: It is generally considered that death is the only appropriate endpoint to evaluate interventions for preventing death; however, this belief may be based on the previous use of inappropriate or inadequate surrogates for death. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether rehospitalization following implementation of an intervention is a reasonable surrogate for death. METHODS AND RESULTS: The time from discharge following intervention to rehospitalization was evaluated for 997 patients discharged after baseline hospitalization in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Trial. The relationship between rehospitalization for various reasons and subsequent death was compared in the two treatment arms to assess the adequacy of rehospitalization as a surrogate for death. Included were rehospitalization for: any reason, a cardiac problem, a noncardiac problem, new or worsened congestive heart failure (CHF), an acute coronary syndrome, and a cardiac procedure. For all of the reasons except cardiac procedure, rehospitalization was associated with a substantially increased hazard for subsequent death. Rehospitalization for new or worsened CHF was most closely (that is, temporally) related to subsequent death and was the only reason for rehospitalization, which fully explained the treatment effect of implantable cardiac defibrillators compared with antiarrhythmic drugs on death. CONCLUSION: Rehospitalization is a significant risk factor for subsequent death. However, only rehospitalization for new or worsened CHF appears to be a potential surrogate for death in the setting of antiarrhythmic interventions.

Atrial fibrillation: a risk factor for increased mortality--an AVID registry analysis.

Emerging evidence suggests that atrial fibrillation is not a benign arrhythmia. It is associated with increased risk of death. The magnitude of association is controversial and potential causes remain unknown. Patients in the registry of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial form the basis for this report. Baseline variables, in particular the presence or absence of a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, were examined in relation to survival. Multivariate Cox regression was used to adjust for differences in important baseline co-variables using 27 pre-selected variables. There were 3762 subjects who were followed for an average of 773+/-420 days; 1459 (39 %) qualified with ventricular fibrillation and 2303 (61 %) with ventricular tachycardia. A history of atrial fibrillation/flutter was present in 24.4 percent. There were many differences in baseline variables between those with and those without a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter. After adjustment for baseline differences, a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter remained a significant independent predictor of mortality, (relative risk=1.20; 95 % confidence intervals=1.03-1.40; p=0.020). Antiarrhythmic drug use, other than amiodarone or sotalol, was also a significant independent predictor of mortality (relative risk 1.34; 95 % confidence intervals 1.07-1.69, p=0.011. Atrial fibrillation/flutter is a significant independent risk factor for increased mortality in patients presenting with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This risk may have been overestimated in previous studies that could not adjust for the proarrhythmic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs other than amiodarone or sotalol.

Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg . Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study.

AIMS: Three randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have been reported with what might appear to be different results. The present analysis was performed to obtain the most precise estimate of the efficacy of the ICD, compared to amiodarone, for prolonging survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data from the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) study, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) were merged into a master database according to a pre-specified protocol. Proportional hazard modelling of individual patient data was used to estimate hazard ratios and to investigate subgroup interactions. Fixed effect meta-analysis techniques were also used to evaluate treatment effects and to assess heterogeneity across studies. The classic fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the estimates of ICD benefit from the three studies were consistent with each other (P heterogeneity=0.306). It also showed a significant reduction in death from any cause with the ICD; with a summary hazard ratio (ICD:amiodarone) of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.60, 0.87;P=0.0006). For the outcome of arrhythmic death, the hazard ratio was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.37, 0.67;P<0.0001). Survival was extended by a mean of 4.4 months by the ICD over a follow-up period of 6 years. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35% derived significantly more benefit from ICD therapy than those with better preserved left ventricular function. Patients treated before the availability of non-thoracotomy ICD implants derived significantly less benefit from ICD therapy than those treated in the non-thoracotomy era. CONCLUSION: Results from the three trials of the ICD vs amiodarone are consistent with each other. There is a 28% reduction in the relative risk of death with the ICD that is due almost entirely to a 50% reduction in arrhythmic death.

The mode selection trial (MOST) in sinus node dysfunction: design, rationale, and baseline characteristics of the first 1000 patients.

BACKGROUND: More than 200,000 permanent pacemakers will be implanted in the United States in 2000 at a cost of more than $2 billion. Sick sinus syndrome (SSS) will likely account for approximately half of all cases necessitating implantation. Pacemaker technology permits the selection of ventricular (single-chamber) or dual-chamber devices. However, clinical and outcomes data are inadequate to support a clear recommendation that one or the other type of device be used. METHODS: The Mode Selection Trial (MOST) is a single-blind study supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute designed to enroll 2000 patients with SSS. All patients will receive a DDDR pacemaker programmed to VVIR or DDDR before implantation. The average time of follow-up will be 3 years. MOST has a >90% power to detect a 25% reduction in the primary end point-nonfatal stroke or total (all cause) mortality-in the DDDR-treated group. Secondary end points will include health-related quality of life and cost effectiveness, atrial fibrillation, and development of pacemaker syndrome. Prespecified subgroups for analysis will include women and the elderly. Enrollment was completed in October 1999, with a total of 2010 patients. RESULTS: The median age of the first 1000 enrolled patients is 74 years, with 25% of patients 80 years or older. Women comprise 49%, and 17% are nonwhite, predominantly black (13%). Before pacemaker implantation, 22% of patients reported a history of congestive heart failure, 11% coronary angioplasty, and 25% coronary bypass surgery. Supraventricular tachycardia including atrial fibrillation was present in 53% of patients. A prior stroke was reported by 12%. Antiarrhythmic therapy was in use in 18% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: MOST will fill the clinical need for carefully designed prospective studies to define the benefits of dual-chamber versus single-chamber ventricular pacing in patients with SSS. The MOST population is typical of the overall pacemaker population in the United States. Thus the final results of MOST should be clinically generalizable.

Efficacy of diuretics and beta-blockers in diabetic hypertensive patients. Results from a meta-analysis. The INDANA Steering Committee.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of diuretic or beta-blocker-based treatment of hypertension in diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A meta-analysis on individual patient data was performed on four trials of the treatment of hypertension in which diabetic patients were included and treated with first-line diuretics or beta-blockers. The main outcomes were the relative risk of death, fatal or nonfatal stroke, fatal or nonfatal coronary events, and major cardiovascular events. RESULTS: There were 92 diabetic patients who received first-line beta-blockers and 1,008 who received diuretics. In the control groups, diabetic patients had nearly twice the risk of any outcome when compared with nondiabetic patients. The same blood pressure reduction was achieved under treatment in the diabetic and nondiabetic patients, except for systolic pressure, which decreased more in the nondiabetic patients at 1 year. In the 15,843 nondiabetic patients, the risk of all four outcomes was reduced significantly in the treated group. In the 2,254 diabetic patients, the risk reduction was significant only for fatal and nonfatal stroke (36%, P = 0.011) and major cardiovascular events (20%, P = 0.032), but not for death (5%, P = 0.65) and fatal or nonfatal coronary events (15%, P = 0.23). However, no heterogeneity was detected between diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients for any outcome. The numbers of outcomes avoided for 1,000 patients treated for 5 years were higher in diabetic patients (e.g., 38 major cardiovascular events) than with nondiabetic patients (e.g., 28 major cardiovascular events). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that hypertensive diabetic patients benefit from first-line treatment with diuretics. No conclusion can be drawn for beta-blockers, owing to the small sample size.

Maintenance of dietary behavior change.

Reducing dietary fat, saturated fat, and sodium and increasing intakes of dietary fiber and fruits and vegetables are important for cardiopulmonary risk reduction. Behaviorally, these dietary changes are very challenging, and in different ways. Fewer than half of U.S. adults have diets meeting recommended intakes of these constituents, and many do not see a need to align their diets with recommendations. Various nutrition education and behavioral counseling approaches have been shown to facilitate changes in fat, fiber, sodium, and fruits and vegetables, but primarily in research settings and among the highly motivated. Practice-based and interdisciplinary studies are needed to refine strategies to effect long-term dietary changes, to differentiate behavioral issues for changes involving additions versus deletions from the diet, and to elucidate the roles of sensory, psychosocial, and contextual factors in adoption and maintenance.

Identification of risk factors in hypertensive patients: contribution of randomized controlled trials through an individual patient database.

BACKGROUND: Predicting individual risk is needed to target preventive interventions toward people with the highest probability of benefit over a given time period. We assessed which prognostic factors should be used in predicting risk for hypertensive patients and in searching for treatment modifiers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 24 390 hypertensive participants who constituted the control groups from 8 controlled trials (1726 deaths over 5 years) were analyzed in multivariate survival models. Outcomes were coronary heart disease death, stroke death, and cardiovascular death. We explored systematically the heterogeneity of results between trials. Left ventricular hypertrophy was electrocardiographically confirmed to be a powerful risk factor and should be included in risk scoring. Height, glomerular filtration rate, and serum uric acid deserve further exploration. Body mass index and heart rate were not confirmed as independent cardiovascular risk factors in this population. The association between male sex and coronary heart disease death was significantly stronger in British cohorts. The lack of prognostic value of diastolic blood pressure was explained by an interaction with age, with a positive association before 65 years and a negative association thereafter. Previous antihypertensive treatment was a significant risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials provide valuable information for risk prediction. Carefully exploring the heterogeneity among trials is a way to assess the generalizability of findings. This approach, if systematically performed, should increase the ability to identify risk modifiers and to predict individual therapeutic benefit.

Relative effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with varying degrees of left ventricular dysfunction who have survived malignant ventricular arrhythmias. AVID Investigators. Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the effect of baseline ejection fraction on survival difference between patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias who were treated with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). BACKGROUND: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study demonstrated improved survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or =0.40 or hemodynamic compromise. METHODS: Survival differences between AAD-treated and ICD-treated patients entered into the AVID study (patients presenting with sustained ventricular arrhythmia associated with an LVEF < or =0.40 or hemodynamic compromise) were compared at different levels of ejection fraction. RESULTS: In patients with an LVEF > or =0.35, there was no difference in survival between AAD-treated and ICD-treated patients. A test for interaction was not significant, but had low power to detect an interaction. For patients with an LVEF 0.20 to 0.34, there was a significantly improved survival with ICD as compared with AAD therapy. In the smaller subgroup with an LVEF <0.20, the same magnitude of survival difference was seen as that in the 0.20 to 0.34 LVEF subgroup, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that patients with relatively well-preserved LVEF (> or =0.35) may not have better survival when treated with the ICD as compared with AADs. At a lower LVEF, the ICD appears to offer improved survival as compared with AADs. Prospective studies with larger patient numbers are needed to assess the effect of relatively well-preserved ejection fraction (> or =0.35) on the relative treatment effect of AADs and the ICDs.

Beta-blocker use and survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether use of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, alone or in combination with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, is associated with improved survival in persons with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT). BACKGROUND: The ability of beta-blockers to alter the mortality of patients with VF or VT receiving contemporary medical management is not well defined. METHODS: Survival of 1,016 randomized and 2,101 eligible, nonrandomized patients with VF or symptomatic VT followed in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial through December 31, 1996 was assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: The 817 (28%) patients discharged from hospital receiving beta-blockers had less ventricular dysfunction, fewer symptoms of heart failure and a different pattern of medication use compared with patients not receiving beta-blockers. Before adjustment for important prognostic variables, beta-blockade was not significantly associated with survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy. After adjustment, beta-blockade remained unrelated to survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with amiodarone alone (n = 1142; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.45; p = 0.85) or a defibrillator alone (n = 1347; adjusted RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; p = 0.58). In contrast, beta-blockade was independently associated with improved survival in eligible, nonrandomized patients who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 412; adjusted RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.88; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blocker use was independently associated with improved survival in patients with VF or symptomatic VT who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, but a protective effect was not prominent in patients already receiving amiodarone or a defibrillator.

Antihypertensive drugs in very old people: a subgroup meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. INDANA Group.

BACKGROUND: Beneficial clinical effects of treatment with antihypertensive drugs have been shown in middle-aged patients and in those hypertensive patients over 60 years old, but whether treatment is beneficial in patients over 80 years old is not known. METHODS: We collected data from all participants aged 80 years and over in randomised controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs through direct contact with study investigators. Our primary outcome was fatal and non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes were death from all causes, cardiovascular death, fatal and non-fatal major coronary and cardiovascular events, and heart failure. FINDINGS: There were 57 strokes and 34 deaths among 874 actively treated patients, compared with 77 strokes and 28 stroke deaths among 796 controls, representing 1 non-fatal stroke prevented for about 100 patients treated each year. The meta-analysis of data from 1670 participants aged 80 years or older suggested that treatment prevented 34% (95% CI 8-52) of strokes. Rates of major cardiovascular events and heart failure were significantly decreased, by 22% and 39%, respectively. However, there was no treatment benefit for cardiovascular death, and a non-significant 6% (-5 to 18) relative excess of death from all causes. INTERPRETATIONS: The inconclusive findings for mortality contrast with the benefit of treatment for non-fatal events. Results of a large-scale specific trial are needed for definite conclusion that antihypertensive treatment is beneficial in very elderly hypertensive patients. Meanwhile, an age threshold beyond which hypertension should not be treated cannot be justified.

Quality of life at baseline: is assessment after randomization valid? The AVID Investigators. The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this report is to examine whether differences existed between patients who completed a baseline quality of life (QoL) form before being informed about their randomized assignments versus those who completed it after knowing their randomization assignments. METHODS: In the pilot phase of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study (n = 200), 113 patients completed a baseline QoL battery prior to randomization (drug versus defibrillator), 49 additional patients completed this battery after randomization, and 38 patients did not complete this battery. Baseline demographic, clinical and QoL data were compared for these groups. RESULTS: Although the two groups with QoL data were not significantly different regarding various clinical and demographic characteristics, they did have significantly different QoL profiles. Patients with QoL collected before randomization had better overall QoL scores and mental health scores. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that patients with worse QoL may be less willing to complete a baseline QoL form in a timely manner or that knowledge of the randomization assignment may have an effect on QoL.

Influence of long-term, low-dose, diuretic-based, antihypertensive therapy on glucose, lipid, uric acid, and potassium levels in older men and women with isolated systolic hypertension: The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program. SHEP Cooperative Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies often of short duration have raised concerns that antihypertensive therapy with diuretics and beta-blockers adversely alters levels of other cardiovascular disease risk factors. METHODS: The Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program was a community-based, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in men and women aged 60 years and older. This retrospective analysis evaluated development of diabetes mellitus in all 4736 participants in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program, including changes in serum chemistry test results in a subgroup for 3 years. Patients were randomized to receive placebo or treatment with active drugs, with the dose increased in stepwise fashion if blood pressure control goals were not attained: step 1, 12.5 mg of chlorthalidone or 25.0 mg of chlorthalidone; and step 2, the addition of 25 mg of atenolol or 50 mg of atenolol or reserpine or matching placebo. RESULTS: After 3 years, the active treatment group had a 13/4 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure than the placebo group (both groups, P<.001). New cases of diabetes were reported by 8.6% of the participants in the active treatment group and 7.5% of the participants in the placebo group (P=.25). Small effects of active treatment compared with placebo were observed with fasting levels of glucose (+0.20 mmol/L [+3.6 mg/dL]; P<.01), total cholesterol (+0.09 mmol/L [+3.5 mg/dL]; P<.01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.02 mmol/L [-0.77 mg/dL]; P<.01) and creatinine (+2.8 micromol/L [+0.03 mg/dL]; P<.001). Larger effects were seen with fasting levels of triglycerides (+0.9 mmol/L [+17 mg/dL]; P<.001), uric acid (+35 micromol/L [+.06 mg/dL]; P<.001), and potassium (-0.3 mmol/L; P<.001). No evidence was found for a subgroup at higher risk of risk factor changes with active treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive therapy with low-dose chlorthalidone (supplemented if necessary) for isolated systolic hypertension lowers blood pressure and its cardiovascular disease complications and has relatively mild effects on other cardiovascular disease risk factor levels.

Ongoing and planned clinical trials of anti-arrhythmic drugs: an update.

Anti-arrhythmic drug therapy is frequently used for the control of ventricular arrhythmias in the setting of heart disease. These agents have been used in many randomised clinical trials in an attempt to demonstrate improved survival. However, most studies have been disappointing, showing little or no improvement in survival, and, in some cases, deterioration. This report reviews ongoing clinical trials designed to evaluate survival in specific patient populations.

Effect of antihypertensive treatment in patients having already suffered from stroke. Gathering the evidence. The INDANA (INdividual Data ANalysis of Antihypertensive intervention trials) Project Collaborators.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Drug treatment of high blood pressure has been shown to reduce the associated cardiovascular risk. Stroke represents the type of event more strongly linked with high blood pressure, responsible for a high rate of death or invalidity, and with the highest proportion of events that can be avoided by treatment. Hypertensive patients with a history of cerebrovascular accident are at particularly high risk of recurrence. Specific trials of blood pressure lowering drugs in stroke survivors showed inconclusive results in the past. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis using all available randomized controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of blood pressure lowering drugs on clinical outcomes (recurrence of stroke, coronary events, cause-specific, and overall mortality) in patients with prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. RESULTS: We identified 9 trials, including a total of 6752 patients: 2 trials included 551 hypertensive stroke survivors; 6 trials of hypertensive patients included a small proportion of stroke survivors (536 patients); 1 trial included stroke survivors, whether hypertensive or not (5665 patients). The recurrence of stroke, fatal and nonfatal, was significantly reduced in active groups compared with control groups consistently across the different sources of data (relative risk of 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.85). There was no evidence that this intervention induced serious adverse effect. CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure lowering drug interventions reduced the risk of stroke recurrence in stroke survivors. Available data did not allow to verify whether such benefit depends on initial blood pressure level. More data are needed before considering antihypertensive therapy in normotensive patients at high cerebrovascular risk.

Clinical trial participant satisfaction: survey of SHEP enrollees. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine older persons' reasons for joining a clinical trial, and to provide data that could be useful in planning and carrying out clinical trials in older and minority populations. DESIGN: A survey. PARTICIPANTS: The sample included 4281 men and women 60 years of age or older who were randomized to the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). MEASUREMENTS: A 10-item satisfaction/attitude questionnaire was designed to evaluate (1) what personal benefits people expect from participation in this trial, (2) motivation for joining, and (3) satisfaction with clinic staff and operations. Each question had a response category asking for a measure of agreement, satisfaction, or importance. RESULTS: The most important reasons for joining the clinical trial were to contribute to science (96%), improve the health of others (96%), and improve their own health (93%). Free medical care and social aspects were less important reasons to join. There were no differences by treatment assignment, but differences in reasons for joining SHEP by age, race, gender, and education were observed. CONCLUSION: Older adults were enthusiastic about clinical trial participation. Recruitment, participant management strategies, and allocation of resources should consider the needs of specific patient groups.

Clinical and socioeconomic profile of patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias in 1993 to 1995. AVID investigators. Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator.

This report summarizes the clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of the first 542 patients entered into the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) trial. AVID is a multicenter trial comparing a strategy of initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement to initial antiarrhythmic drug therapy in preventing death in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest who were not taking amiodarone and who did not have an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in place at the time of the index event. These patients were randomly assigned to immediate defibrillator placement or to "best" medical therapy. Clinical and socioeconomic histories were collected by interview using standard terms developed for the study. Patients without (group 1) and with (group 2) a history of prior cardiac arrest were compared. The mean age of the 542 patients was 65 +/- 10 years, most were men, white, had coronary disease, and were highly functional despite the fact that only a minority were employed. Almost all had some form of health insurance. At the time of the index event, few were taking any therapy to prevent cardiac arrest, even in the group of patients with a history of previous cardiac arrest. Thus, the clinical and socioeconomic profile of patients resuscitated from sudden cardiac death entered into the AVID study is generally as expected. There is a striking absence of any attempt at chronic therapy to prevent cardiac arrest in most patients with a prior ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation.

Prevention of heart failure by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. SHEP Cooperative Research Group.

CONTEXT: Heart failure is often preceded by isolated systolic hypertension, but the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment in preventing heart failure is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of diuretic-based antihypertensive stepped-care treatment on the occurrence of heart failure in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. DESIGN: Analysis of data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4736 persons aged 60 years and older with systolic blood pressure between 160 and 219 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg who participated in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). INTERVENTION: Stepped-care antihypertensive drug therapy, in which the step 1 drug is chlorthalidone (12.5-25 mg) or matching placebo, and the step 2 drug is atenolol (25-50 mg) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fatal and nonfatal heart failure. RESULTS: During an average of 4.5 years of follow-up, fatal or nonfatal heart failure occurred in 55 of 2365 patients randomized to active therapy and 105 of the 2371 patients randomized to placebo (relative risk [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.71; P<.001; number needed to treat to prevent 1 event [NNT], 48). Among patients with a history of or electrocardiographic evidence of prior myocardial infarction (MI), the RR was 0.19 (95% CI, 0.06-0.53; P=.002; NNT, 15). Older patients, men, and those with higher systolic blood pressure or a history of or electrocardiographic evidence of MI at baseline had higher risk of developing heart failure. CONCLUSION: In older persons with isolated systolic hypertension, stepped-care treatment based on low-dose chlorthalidone exerted a strong protective effect in preventing heart failure. Among patients with prior MI, an 80% risk reduction was observed.