Completed
Phase 3
Age: 18Years - 75Years
All Genders
ID00000518
Led by University of Utah · Updated on 2016-01-21
N/A
Participants Needed
N/A
Research Sites
N/A
Total Duration
On this page
Sponsors
U
University of Utah
Lead Sponsor
N
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Collaborating Sponsor
AI-Summary
What this Trial Is About
To determine whether electrophysiologic study (EPS) or Holter monitoring (HM) was the better method for selecting effective long-term antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or an episode of aborted sudden death.
CONDITIONS
Official Title
Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM)
Who Can Participate
Age: 18Years - 75Years
All Genders
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if you...
Men and women with documented ventricular tachycardia and those resuscitated from sudden death.
You will not qualify if you...
History of severe allergic reactions to study medication Currently pregnant or breastfeeding Recent participation in another clinical trial within the last 30 days Presence of uncontrolled medical conditions that could affect safety
Trial Site Locations
Site Locations not provided
Location information for this trial is currently unavailable.
How is the study designed?
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Masking
N/A
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Model
N/A
Primary Purpose
TREATMENT
Number of Arms
0
Not the Right Trial for You?
Explore thousands of other clinical trials that might be a better match.
Sign up to get personalized trial recommendations delivered to your inbox.
Already have an account? Log in here
Published Research Related To This Trial
Selective prolongation of QRS late potentials by sodium channel blocking antiarrhythmic drugs: relation to slowing of ventricular tachycardia. Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Trial (ESVEM) Investigators.
R A Freedman, J S Steinberg
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1848871Stability over time of heart period variability in patients with previous myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmias. The CAPS and ESVEM investigators.
J T Bigger, J L Fleiss, L M Rolnitzky...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1546643Determinants of predicted efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs in the electrophysiologic study versus electrocardiographic monitoring trial. The ESVEM Investigators.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8425281A comparison of electrophysiologic testing with Holter monitoring to predict antiarrhythmic-drug efficacy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators.
J W Mason
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8332149A comparison of seven antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Investigators.
J W Mason
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8332150Results of Holter ECG guided therapy for ventricular arrhythmias: the ESVEM trial.
R Lazzara
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7513876Implications of the ESVEM trial for use of antiarrhythmic drugs that prolong cardiac repolarization.
J W Mason
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8237831Cost of initial therapy in the Electrophysiological Study Versus ECG Monitoring trial (ESVEM).
N A Omoigui, F I Marcus, J W Mason...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7850943Insights into the Electrophysiology Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring Trial: its programmed stimulation protocol may introduce bias when assessing long-term antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
L A Biblo, M D Carlson, A L Waldo
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7759711