prevention of sudden death clinical trials results

Combined CRT + ICD versus CRT
COMPANION (CRT+ICD vs CRT), 2004	ICD+CRT versus CRT	patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and QRS duration >120 ms	open Follow-up duration: 16 months
Combined CRT + ICD versus ICD alone
MIRACLE-ICD-II, 2004	ICD+CRT (and optimalmedical treatment) versus ICD (optimalmedical treatment)	NYHA class II heart failure patients on optimal medical therapy with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <=35%, a QRS >=130 ms, and a class I indication for an ICD	double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months
MIRACLE-ICD-I, 2003	ICD+CRT (plus optimal medical treatment) versus ICD (plus optimal medical treatment)	patients with NYHA class III or IV congestive HF despite appropriate medical management	double blind Follow-up duration: 6 months
CONTAK-CD , 2003	ICD+CRT versus ICD (no CRT)	patients with symptomatic heart failure, intraventricular conduction delay, and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias	open Follow-up duration: 4.7 months
Combined CRT + ICD versus no CRT
RethinQ, 2007 NCT00132977	cardiac-resynchronization therapy ICD+CRT versus no cardiac-resynchronization therapy	patients with standard indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, NYHA 3, EF<35%, QRS<130ms, and evidence of mechanical dyssynchrony	open Follow-up duration: 6 months USA
Combined CRT + ICD versus no CRT no ICD
AMIOVIRT, 2003	ICD versus amiodarone as medical therapy	patients with non ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia	open Follow-up duration: 24 months
COMPANION (CRT+ICD vs MT), 2004	ICD+CRT versus no ICT no CRT, optimized medical therapy	patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=0.35 and QRS duration >120 ms	open Follow-up duration: 16 months
CRT versus no CRT
MUSTIC-SR, 2001	CRT Medtronic/ELA medical versus CRT off	patients with severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class III) due to chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, with normal sinus rhythm and a duration of the QRS interval of more than 150 msec	Single blind Follow-up duration: 3 months
MIRACLE, 2002	CRT Medtronic versus CRT off	patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of heart failure associated with an ejection fraction of 35 percent or less and a QRS interval of 130 msec	Bouble blind Follow-up duration: 6 months
PATH-CHF, 2002	CRT versus no CRT	patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delay	open Follow-up duration: 1 month
MUSTIC AF, 2002	CRT Medtronic/ELA medical versus CRT off	patients with NYHA class III left ventricular systolic dysfunction, chronic atrial fibrillation, slow ventricular rate necessitating permanent ventricular pacing, and a wide QRS complex (paced width >or=200 ms)	Single blind Follow-up duration: 3 months
CARE-HF, 2005	CRT medtronic versus no CRT	patients with NYHA class III or IV heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony	open Follow-up duration: 29.4 months
RD-CHF, 2003	CRT versus no CRT	patients with advanced heart failure
COMPANION (CRT vs MT), 2004	CRT guidant versus no CRT, optimized medical therapy	patients with advanced heart failure (NYHA III or IV) due to ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <=35% and QRS duration >120 ms	open Follow-up duration: 16 months
Garrigue, 2002	CRT versus no CRT	patients with chronic atrial fibrillation, severe heart failure and QRS prolongation of > or = 140 ms	single blind
ICD versus no ICD
Dutch trial, 1995	ICD versus conventional therapy	survivors of cardiac arrest caused by old myocardial infarction	Follow-up duration: 2 y
MADIT, 1996	ICD versus anti arrhythmic drugs as conventional therapy	patients with MI >=3 wk before entry and EF <=0.35 and Asymptomatic unsustained VT unrelated to an acute MI with inducible VT not suppressed after iv procainamide	open Follow-up duration: 27 months
MADIT-II, 2002	implantable cardiac defibrillator versus no ICD, optimized medical therapy	patients with a prior myocardial infarction and EF<=0.30	open Follow-up duration: 20 months
CASH, 2000	ICD versus antiarrhythmic agents (amiodarone and metoprolol)	secondary prevention: survivors of cardiac arrest secondary to documented ventricular arrhythmias	open Follow-up duration: 57 months
CAT, 2002	ICD versus no iCD, conventional therapy	patients with recent onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF <=0.30	open Follow-up duration: 66 months
DEFINITE, 2004	ICD versus no ICD, standard medical therapy	patients with non ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF <0.36 and Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia or frequent premature ventricular complexes	open Follow-up duration: 29 months
SCD-HeFT (ICD vs placebo), 2005 NCT00000609	ICD versus optimized medical therapy	patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF<=0.35	open Follow-up duration: 45.5 months
AVID, 1997 NCT00000531	ICD versus class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone	secondary prevention: patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardia	open Follow-up duration: 18.2 months
CIDS, 2000	ICD versus amiodarone	secondary prevention: patients with resuscitated VF or VT or with unmonitored syncope	Follow-up duration: 36 months
CABG-patch, 1997 NCT00000540	ICD versus control	patients undergoing CABG with EF <=0.35 and Abnormal signal-averaged electrocardiogram	open Follow-up duration: 32 months
DINAMIT, 2004	implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus no ICD, optimized medical therapy	patients within 6–40 days of myocardial infarct ischemic with EF<=0.35 and cardiac autonomic modulation (depressed heart rate variability or increased mean 24-hour heart rate)	open Follow-up duration: 30 months
MUSIT, 1999	ICD or drugs as indicated by electrophysiologic testing versus no antiarrhythmic therapy	patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF<=0.40 and Inducible, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias	open Follow-up duration: median 39 months
SCD-HeFT (ICD vs amiodarone), 2005 NCT00000609	ICD versus optimized medical therapy with amiodarone	patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy withEF<=0.35	open Follow-up duration: 45.5 months