Background: Among his major cardiac electrophysiological contributions, Miles Vaughan Williams (1918-2016) provided a classification of antiarrhythmic drugs that remains central to their clinical use. Methods: We survey implications of subsequent discoveries concerning sarcolemmal, sarcoplasmic reticular, and cytosolic biomolecules, developing an expanded but pragmatic classification that encompasses approved and potential antiarrhythmic drugs on this centenary of his birth. Results: We first consider the range of pharmacological targets, tracking these through to cellular electrophysiological effects. We retain the original Vaughan Williams Classes I through IV but subcategorize these divisions in light of more recent developments, including the existence of Na+ current components (for Class I), advances in autonomic (often G protein-mediated) signaling (for Class II), K+ channel subspecies (for Class III), and novel molecular targets related to Ca2+ homeostasis (for Class IV). We introduce new classes based on additional targets, including channels involved in automaticity, mechanically sensitive ion channels, connexins controlling electrotonic cell coupling, and molecules underlying longer-term signaling processes affecting structural remodeling. Inclusion of this widened range of targets and their physiological sequelae provides a framework for a modernized classification of established antiarrhythmic drugs based on their pharmacological targets. The revised classification allows for the existence of multiple drug targets/actions and for adverse, sometimes actually proarrhythmic, effects. The new scheme also aids classification of novel drugs under investigation. Conclusions: We emerge with a modernized classification preserving the simplicity of the original Vaughan Williams framework while aiding our understanding and clinical management of cardiac arrhythmic events and facilitating future developments in this area.

Objective To review the literature systematically and perform meta-analyses to address these questions: 1) Is there evidence that self-measured blood pressure (BP) without other augmentation is superior to office-based measurement of BP for achieving better BP control or for preventing adverse clinical outcomes that are related to elevated BP? 2) What is the optimal target for BP lowering during antihypertensive therapy in adults? 3) In adults with hypertension, how do various antihypertensive drug classes differ in their benefits and harms compared with each other as first-line therapy? Methods Electronic literature searches were performed by Doctor Evidence, a global medical evidence software and services company, across PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to 2015 using key words and relevant subject headings for randomized controlled trials that met eligibility criteria defined for each question. We performed analyses using traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches, including random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results Our results suggest that: 1) There is a modest but significant improvement in systolic BP in randomized controlled trials of self-measured BP versus usual care at 6 but not 12 months, and for selected patients and their providers self-measured BP may be a helpful adjunct to routine office care. 2) systolic BP lowering to a target of <130 mmHg may reduce the risk of several important outcomes including risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and major cardiovascular events. No class of medications (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, or beta blockers) was significantly better than thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics as a first-line therapy for any outcome.

This publication describes uniform definitions for cardiovascular and stroke outcomes developed by the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA established the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative in 2009 to simplify the design and conduct of clinical trials intended to support marketing applications. The writing committee recognizes that these definitions may be used in other types of clinical trials and clinical care processes where appropriate. Use of these definitions at the FDA has enhanced the ability to aggregate data within and across medical product development programs, conduct meta-analyses to evaluate cardiovascular safety, integrate data from multiple trials, and compare effectiveness of drugs and devices. Further study is needed to determine whether prospective data collection using these common definitions improves the design, conduct, and interpretability of the results of clinical trials.

Cardio-oncology is an emerging discipline focused predominantly on the detection and management of cancer treatment-induced cardiac dysfunction (cardiotoxicity), which predisposes to development of overt heart failure or coronary artery disease. The direct adverse consequences, as well as those secondary to anticancer therapeutics, extend beyond the heart, however, to affect the entire cardiovascular-skeletal muscle axis (ie, whole-organism cardiovascular toxicity). The global nature of impairment creates a strong rationale for treatment strategies that augment or preserve global cardiovascular reserve capacity. In noncancer clinical populations, exercise training is an established therapy to improve cardiovascular reserve capacity, leading to concomitant reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and its attendant symptoms. Here, we overview the tolerability and efficacy of exercise on cardiovascular toxicity in adult patients with cancer. We also propose a conceptual research framework to facilitate personalized risk assessment and the development of targeted exercise prescriptions to optimally prevent or manage cardiovascular toxicity after a cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome. AIM: Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms. METHODS: Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function. RESULTS: Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; P=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; P<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; P<0.0001), and a second minimal overlap analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; P<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; P<0.001).