Cardiac arrest study Hamburg

Following resuscitation from ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless VT, ICD implantation is a proven strategy for the prevention of recurrent SCD. Three prospective, randomized, controlled trials, the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study, the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), and the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), support this strategy [27-29]. 

Kuck KH, Cappato R, Siebels J, et al. Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH). Circulation. Aug 15 2000 102(7) 748-754. 

The Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) randomized 349 cardiac arrest survivors due to documented... 

The original intent of the ICD was to prevent recurrent cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Secondary prevention of recurrent cardiac arrest was initially the prime reason for ICD implant. Five multicenter prospective randomized secondary prevention trials have been completed AVID (Antiatrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillator), CASH (Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg), CIDS (Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study), DEBUT (Defibrillator versus beta-Blockers for Unexplained death in Thailand), and MAVERIC (The Midlands Trial of Empirical Amiodarone versus Electrophysiology-guided Interventions and Implantable (Tardioverter-defibrillators) (Table 14.3) (77,118,121,149,170). 

CASH (Cardiac Arrest Study, Hamburg 1994) Metoprolol, amiodarone, propafenone vs. ICD for VT or VF CAD MI survivors documented VT or VF unrelated to MI. EP testing before randomization... 

---