Related Experiment Videos
Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID)--rationale, design, and methods
A P Hallstrom1, H L Greene, D G Wyse
1AVID Clinical Trial Center, University of Washington, Seattle., USA.
The American Journal of Cardiology
|March 1, 1995
Summary
The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study compares implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) to antiarrhythmic drugs for preventing death in high-risk patients. This trial evaluates treatment strategies for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
- Electrophysiology
Background:
- Patients with ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia face high mortality risk.
- Current treatment strategies include antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).
- Optimal initial therapy for these patients remains a critical clinical question.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness of initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy in preventing death.
- To evaluate secondary endpoints including cost-effectiveness and quality of life.
Main Methods:
- The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study is a randomized controlled trial.
- Enrolled 1,200 patients with a history of ventricular fibrillation or hemodynamically compromising ventricular tachycardia.
- Compared initial treatment with advanced-generation transvenous ICDs against antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or sotalol).
Main Results:
- Primary endpoint is total mortality.
- Secondary endpoints include cost and quality of life.
- Pilot phase confirmed trial feasibility, with full enrollment planned.
Conclusions:
- The AVID study provides crucial data on the comparative efficacy of ICDs versus antiarrhythmic drugs.
- Findings will inform clinical decision-making for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death.
- Long-term follow-up will assess the impact on mortality, cost, and quality of life.