This decision-analysis model assesses ambulatory cardiac monitoring (ACM), ACM followed by exercise testing, and electrophysiologic studies (EPS) in the evaluation and selection of antiarrhythmic agents in postinfarct patients with malignant arrhythmias. With existing data, we find no consistent advantage for one method of drug testing over another, although ACM appears to require fewer resources than does EPS. More patients qualify for EPS, but this fact does not increase the proportion of patients for whom a drug can be identified. These methods may test different aspects of arrhythmia activity and drug response, and sequential use may provide additional benefits. Such benefits must be determined empirically.