Talk:CAST I

Outcomes

Hi team, I was thinking about truncating the outcomes after the primary one. The rest don't really change the significance of the study. Thoughts? --Tim Plante 05:19, 2 December 2012 (PST)

If we are referring to all-cause mortality and death or cardiac arrest due to MI complicated by cardiogenic shock, I would consider keeping. Since the secondary outcome of all-cause mortality risk is also significant, these class IC antiarrhythmics cause more risk than besides arrythmias (primary outcome). Antiarrhythmics are all bad, which include causing more MI which resulted in cardiogenic shock--overall, leading to the blackbox warning that these medications are banned from all patients with underlying cardiac disease. --mlam 00:14, 11 December 2012 (PST)

NSVT In First 48 Hours

I was looking for an article to support the sentence saying discussing NSVT in first 48 hours not being of significance and I found an article stating the opposite. Are there other sources I'm not seeing? --Tim Plante 15:23, 9 December 2012 (PST)

I think you are right here. seems like NSVT in first 48 hours is what is commonly presumed, but probably based on expert opinion? it may also be different now in the last 10 years in the era of PCIs and stents which lead to quicker reperfusion times and probably reperfusion ischemia in first 24 hours. No idea the applicability of 1998 study, but probably the best we have today. I would either vote to delete the line about NSVT in first 48 hous, but not go into too much discussion about the first 48 hours in the major points. --mlam 00:03, 11 December 2012 (PST)

Beta-blockers, Amiodarone and ICD

Timmy, I take that back. I think a short succinct paragraph including a discussion about beta-blockers, amiodarone and ICD may be helpful since these therapies are among first line to prevent arrythmic deaths in MI patients. Thoughts? --mlam 00:21, 11 December 2012 (PST)

CAST I and CAST II

CAST I randomized encainide and flecainide vs. placebo. CAST II compared moricizine to placebo. Shall we rename this article CAST I? I say we keep CAST, and incorporate the results of CAST II in the major points for now. We can rename the trials when we come to doing CAST II at a later date--which is probably lower priority. --mlam 00:28, 11 December 2012 (PST)

I'm a sucker for formality. I went ahead and moved it -- feel free to undo this change. CAST II is a much less important trial and don't think that it should be a priority for the site right now. Would be good to keep a red hyperlink in the major points to CAST II for now. --Tim Plante 04:23, 11 December 2012 (PST)