Patients with symptomatic ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or aborted sudden cardiac death remain at high risk for arrhythmia recurrence. In recent years, strategies to treat these patients have changed. Concerns about the proarrhythmia risk and uncertain efficacy of class I agents have resulted in a shift in interest to non-class I antiarrhythmic drugs such as sotalol and amiodarone. Both drugs have class III antiarrhythmic properties (i.e., both lengthen repolarization and refractoriness); however, each also has its own additional electrophysiologic effects. Prospectively designed, randomized studies have shown that both sotalol and amiodarone have more potent antiarrhythmic actions than class I agents. However, even as the advantages of sotalol and amiodarone have been recognized, enthusiasm for nonpharmacologic modes of treatment, particularly the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), has also markedly increased. The ICD has been shown to decrease dramatically the incidence of sudden death, which may lead to the reduction of total mortality. Whether patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias should be treated first with antiarrhythmic agents or with an ICD is an important question. The results of recent studies suggest that treatment with an ICD is more effective than electrophysiologically guided treatment with class I agents. However, results of prospectively designed randomized studies comparing the efficacy of the ICD with that of sotalol and amiodarone must become available before definitive recommendations can be made concerning the use of the ICD as first-line therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation or aborted sudden cardiac death. In addition, there may be a significant role for the use of antiarrhythmic drugs in conjunction with ICDs.