H. Daniel Lewis

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of aspirin treatment (324 mg in buffered solution daily) for 12 weeks in 1266 men with unstable angina (625 taking aspirin and 641 placebo). The principal end points were death and acute myocardial infarction diagnosed by the presence of creatine kinase MB or pathologic Q-wave changes on electrocardiograms. The incidence of death or acute myocardial infarction was 51 per cent lower in the aspirin group than in the placebo group: 31 patients (5.0 per cent) as compared with 65 (10.1 per cent); P = 0.0005. Nonfatal acute myocardial infarction was 51 per cent lower in the aspirin group: 21 patients (3.4 per cent) as compared with 44 (6.9 per cent); P = 0.005. The reduction in mortality in the aspirin group was also 51 per cent--10 patients (1.6 per cent) as compared with 21 (3.3 per cent)--although it was not statistically significant; P = 0.054. There was no difference in gastrointestinal symptoms or evidence of blood loss between the treatment and control groups. Our data show that aspirin has a protective effect against acute myocardial infarction in men with unstable angina, and they suggest a similar effect on mortality.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias in patients with congestive heart failure are associated with increased rates of overall mortality and sudden death. Amiodarone is now used widely to prevent ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. We conducted a trial to determine whether amiodarone can reduce overall mortality in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: We used a double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol in which 674 patients with symptoms of congestive heart failure, cardiac enlargement, 10 or more premature ventricular contractions per hour, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40 percent or less were randomly assigned to receive amiodarone (336 patients) or placebo (338 patients). The primary end point was overall mortality, and the median follow-up was 45 months (range, 0 to 54). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall mortality between the two treatment groups (P = 0.6). The two-year actuarial survival rate was 69.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 64.2 to 74.6) for the patients in the amiodarone group and 70.8 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 65.7 to 75.9) for those in the placebo group. At two years, the rate of sudden death was 15 percent in the amiodarone group and 19 percent in the placebo group (P = 0.43). There was a trend toward a reduction in overall mortality among the patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who received amiodarone (P = 0.07). Amiodarone was significantly more effective in suppressing ventricular arrhythmias and increased the left ventricular ejection fraction by 42 percent at two years. CONCLUSIONS: Although amiodarone was effective in suppressing ventricular arrhythmias and improving ventricular function, it did not reduce the incidence of sudden death or prolong survival among patients with heart failure, except for a trend toward reduced mortality among those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: The optimal pharmacologic means to restore and maintain sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation remains controversial. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 665 patients who were receiving anticoagulants and had persistent atrial fibrillation to receive amiodarone (267 patients), sotalol (261 patients), or placebo (137 patients) and monitored them for 1 to 4.5 years. The primary end point was the time to recurrence of atrial fibrillation beginning on day 28, determined by means of weekly transtelephonic monitoring. RESULTS: Spontaneous conversion occurred in 27.1 percent of the amiodarone group, 24.2 percent of the sotalol group, and 0.8 percent of the placebo group, and direct-current cardioversion failed in 27.7 percent, 26.5 percent, and 32.1 percent, respectively. The median times to a recurrence of atrial fibrillation were 487 days in the amiodarone group, 74 days in the sotalol group, and 6 days in the placebo group according to intention to treat and 809, 209, and 13 days, respectively, according to treatment received. Amiodarone was superior to sotalol (P<0.001) and to placebo (P<0.001), and sotalol was superior to placebo (P<0.001). In patients with ischemic heart disease, the median time to a recurrence of atrial fibrillation was 569 days with amiodarone therapy and 428 days with sotalol therapy (P=0.53). Restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm significantly improved the quality of life and exercise capacity. There were no significant differences in major adverse events among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone and sotalol are equally efficacious in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Amiodarone is superior for maintaining sinus rhythm, but both drugs have similar efficacy in patients with ischemic heart disease. Sustained sinus rhythm is associated with an improved quality of life and improved exercise performance.