Effect of antiarrhythmic therapy on mortality in survivors of myocardial infarction with asymptomatic complex ventricular arrhythmias: Basel Antiarrhythmic Study of Infarct Survival (BASIS)

A patient with sustained ventricular tachycardia: identification of a responder to amiodarone using signal-averaged electrocardiogram

A 75-year-old man suffered sustained ventricular tachycardia with syncopal attack. Ventricular tachycardias appeared repeatedly, and an electrical defibrillator was used after an anti-arrhythmic drug, such as lidocaine or mexiletine, proved ineffective. The tachycardias had multiple origins, and the signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) showed ventricular late potential before the administration of amiodarone. After administration, the filtered QRS and duration of the late potential increased, but the recurrence of tachycardias was suppressed. The reason for this is thought to be that amiodarone blocked the sodium channel and delayed conduction, consequently blocking reentry, because amiodaron has antiarrhymic properties with a prolongation of refractoriness and minimal effect on conduction velocity in ventricular myocardium, and inhibits sympathetic activity, and blocks L-type calcium channel besides the depression of the fast sodium channel. In this case, SAECG predicted to some degree whether or not this patient's ventricular tachycardia would respond to amiodarone.

A brief history of sudden cardiac death and its therapy

At the end of the 19th century, there was both experimental and clinical evidence that coronary artery obstruction causes ventricular fibrillation and sudden death and that fibrillation could be terminated by electric shocks. The dominant figure at that time was McWilliam, who in 1923 complained that "little attention was given to the new view for many years." This remained so for many decades. It was not until the 1960s that the medical profession became aware of the magnitude of the problem of sudden death and began to install coronary care units where arrhythmias could be monitored and prompt defibrillation could be delivered. This approach was pioneered by Julian in 1961. Milestones that allowed this development were open-chest defibrillation by Beck, closed-chest defibrillation by Zoll, cardiac massage by Kouwenhoven et al., and development of the DC defibrillator by Lown. In 1980, Mirowski et al. implanted the first implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in a patient. Thereafter, the use of the ICD increased exponentially. Several randomized trials, largely in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction or in patients with documented lethal arrhythmias, showed beyond doubt that the ICD is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in preventing sudden death, although a number of trials showed no effect. Trials on antiarrhythmic drugs were disappointing. Sodium channel blockers and "pure" potassium channel blockers actually increase mortality, calcium channel blockers have no effect, and, although amiodarone reduces arrhythmic death, it had no effect on total mortality in the 2 largest trials. Only the beta-blockers have been proven to reduce the incidence of sudden death, but their effect appears not to be related to the suppression of arrhythmias but rather to the reduction in sinus rate. Drugs that prevent ischemic events, or lessen their impact, such as anticoagulants, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and aldosteron antagonists, all reduce the incidence of sudden death.

ICD Therapy for the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Post-MI Patients

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are unequivocally the treatment of choice for patients who have already experienced a near-fatal tachyarrhythmic event. Recently, studies have conclusively demonstrated that extending the benefits of ICD therapy to postinfarction patients with resultant left ventricular dysfunction results in dramatic additional lifesaving without the need for complex risk- stratification procedures. The landmark Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) shows that patients with reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction < 30%) 1 month after a myocardial infarction should receive an ICD to prevent sudden cardiac death.

Activation of peripheral delta opioid receptors eliminates cardiac electrical instability in a rat model of post-infarction cardiosclerosis via mitochondrial ATP-dependent K+ channels

The effects of the selective delta-1 (delta(1)) opioid receptor agonist, DPDPE, and the selective delta(2) opioid receptor agonist, DSLET, have been studied on the ventricular fibrillation threshold (VFT) in rats with an experimental post-infarction cardiosclerosis (CS). It has been found that CS induced a significant decrease in VFT. This CS-induced decrease in VFT was significantly reversed by intravenous administration of DPDPE (0.1 mg/kg) 10 min before VFT measurement. On the contrary, intravenous injection of DSLET (0.5 mg/kg) exacerbated the CS-induced cardiac electrical instability. Pretreatment with the selective delta opioid receptor antagonist, ICI 174,864 (0.5 mg/kg), completely abolished the changes in VFT produced by both DPDPE and DSLET. Previous administration of a nonselective peripherally acting opioid receptor antagonist, naloxone methiodide (5 mg/kg) also completely reversed the antifibrillatory action of DPDPE. Naloxone methiodide and ICI 174,864 alone had no effect on VFT. Pretreatment with the nonselective K(ATP) channel blocker, glibenclamide (0.3 mg/kg), or with the mitochondrial selective K(ATP) channel blocker, 5-hydroxydecanoic acid (5-HD, 5 mg/kg), completely abolished the DPDPE-induced increase in cardiac electrical stability. Glibenclamide and 5-HD alone had no effect on VFT. These results demonstrate that the delta opioid receptor plays an important role in the regulation of electrical stability in rats with post-infarction cardiosclerosis. We propose that peripheral delta(1) opioid receptor stimulation reverses CS-induced electrical instability via mitochondrial K(ATP) channels. On the contrary, delta(2) opioid receptor stimulation may exacerbate the CS-induced decrease in VFT. Further studies are necessary to determine the delta opioid receptor subtype which mediates the antifibrillatory effect of DPDPE and pro-fibrillatory effect of DSLET.

Better living through chemistry: does it still apply to patients after myocardial infarction?

Sudden cardiac death is an elusive process that claims a significant number of lives annually in the United States. It is often associated with increased mortality within the first year after myocardial infarction, with the highest frequency occurring among patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Therefore, increasing survival rates in patients with a history of both disorders is an important goal of therapy. Recent trials suggested that an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in these patients may be superior to medical intervention in reducing the high mortality rate. Four major trials measured the benefits of an ICD for patients at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. We assessed whether patients in these trials received adequate drug therapy as directed by American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guidelines. One aim was to determine if medicated patients who served as controls in the trials were fairly represented. Furthermore, the need for improved overall guideline adherence was apparent.

Beta-blocker decreases the increase in QT dispersion and transmural dispersion of repolarization induced by bepridil

Bepridil is effective for intractable cardiac arrhythmia, but in rare cases will induce torsades de pointes (TdP) associated with QT interval prolongation. Beta-blockers will effectively prevent TdP in some clinical settings, so the effect of beta-blocker on the change in QT interval, QT dispersion and transmural dispersion of repolarization (TDR) induced by bepridil was investigated in 10 patients (7 male, 3 female; 62+/-6 years old) with intractable paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. The QTc interval, QTc dispersion and TDR were measured before and after 1 month of administration of bepridil, and then a beta-blocker was added and the QTc interval, QTc dispersion and TDR re-measured 1 month later. Bepridil significantly prolonged the QTc interval (0.42+/-0.05 to 0.50+/-0.08; p<0.01), and increased both the QT dispersion (0.07+/-0.05 to 0.14+/-0.08; p<0.01) and TDR (0.10+/-0.04 to 0.16+/-0.05; p<0.01). The addition of a beta-blocker decreased the QTc interval (0.50+/-0.08 to 0.47+/-0.04; p=0.09) and significantly decreased both the QTc dispersion (0.14 +/-0.08 to 0.06+/-0.02; p<0.01) and TDR (0.16+/-0.05 to 0.11+/-0.04; p<0.001). Compared with the control, the combination therapy significantly prolonged the QTc interval, but did not increase either QTc dispersion or TDR, and so was effective in all patients with intractable AF. The findings suggest that beta-blocker reduces the increase in QT dispersion and TDR induced by bepridil, and combined therapy with bepridil and beta-blocker might thus be useful for intractable atrial fibrillation.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic agents at promoting sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to estimate the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs at promoting sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

Articles were identified by using a comprehensive search of English language papers indexed in Medline from 1966 to August 2001. For the outcomes of sinus rhythm and death, a random effects model was used to model repeated assessments within a study at different time points.

SETTING

Emergency departments and ambulatory clinics.

PATIENTS

Patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTERVENTIONS

Antiarrhythmic agents grouped according to their Vaughan-Williams class.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sinus rhythm and mortality.

RESULTS

91 articles met a priori criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Median duration of follow up was one day (range 0.04-1096, mean (SD) 46 (136) days). The median proportion of patients in sinus rhythm at follow up was 55% (range 0-100%) and 32% (range 0-90%) receiving active treatment and placebo, respectively. Median survival was 99% (range 55-100%) and 99% (range 55-100%). Compared with placebo, the following drug classes were associated with increased sinus rhythm at follow up: IA (treatment difference 21.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.3% to 26.8%); IC (treatment difference 33.1%, 95% CI 23.3% to 42.9%); and III (treatment difference 17.4%, 95% CI 11.5% to 23.3%). Class IC drugs were associated with increased sinus rhythm at follow up compared with class IV drugs (treatment difference 43.2%, 95% CI 11.5% to 75.0%). There was no significant difference in mortality between any drug classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Class IA, IC, and III drugs are associated with increased sinus rhythm at follow up compared with placebo. It is unclear whether any antiarrhythmic drug class is associated with increased or decreased mortality.

A Benefit-Risk Assessment of Class III Antiarrhythmic Agents

With beta-blockers as the exception, increasing doubt is emerging on the value of antiarrhythmic drug therapy following a series of trials that have either shown no mortality benefit or even an excess mortality. Vaughan Williams class I drugs are generally avoided in patients with structural heart disease, and class IV drugs are avoided in heart failure. Unfortunately, arrhythmias are a growing problem due to an increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillation and sudden death. The population is becoming older and more patients survive for a longer time period with congestive heart failure, which again increases the frequency of both supraventricular as well as ventricular arrhythmias. Class III antiarrhythmic drugs act by blocking repolarising currents and thereby prolong the effective refractory period of the myocardium. This is believed to facilitate termination of re-entry tachyarrhythmias. This class of drugs is developed for treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. Amiodarone, sotalol, dofetilide, and ibutilide are examples of class III drugs that are currently available. Amiodarone and sotalol have other antiarrhythmic properties in addition to pure class III action, which differentiates them from the others. However, all have potential serious adverse events. Proarrhythmia, especially torsade de pointes, is a common problem making the benefit-risk ratio of these drugs a key question. Class III drugs have been evaluated in different settings: primary and secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias and in treatment of atrial fibrillation or flutter. Based on existing evidence there is no routine indication for antiarrhythmic drug therapy other than beta-blockers in patients at high risk of sudden death. Subgroup analyses of trials with amiodarone and dofetilide suggest that patients with atrial fibrillation may have a mortality reduction with these drugs. However, this needs to be tested in a prospective trial. Similarly, subgroups that will benefit from prophylactic treatment with class III antiarrhythmic drugs may be found based on QT-intervals or - in the future - from genetic testing. Class III drugs are effective in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for the maintenance of sinus rhythm after conversion. This is currently by far the most important indication for this class of drugs. As defined by recent guidelines, amiodarone and dofetilide have their place as second-line therapy except for patients with heart failure where they are first line therapy being the only drugs where the safety has been documented for this group of high risk patients.

Effects of cardiac rehabilitation on atrial wave in patients after myocardial infarction

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can improve cardiac hemodynamic performance in patients after myocardial infarction (MI). Little evidence is provided concerning the consequences of CR on atrial wave duration, and less is known about the link between pre-arrhythmogenic patterns and the cardiovascular performance improvement in these subjects. Twenty-six patients, post-MI 0 to 7 days, underwent a complete CR cycle and a signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG) for the evaluation of atrial activation parameters (group 1) to appreciate if physical training can promote parallel improvement in cardiovascular and intra-atrial conduction parameters. A control group of 24 well-matched nonischemic subjects (group 2) was chosen for data comparison. Resting heart rate (p < 0.01) and resting double product (p < 0.01) decreased after CR in groups 1 and 2, while diastolic blood pressure at maximal stress was decreased in group 1 (p < 0.01) with a parallel increase in the time of physical training (p < 0.05). SAECG parameters of atrial activation were unchanged in group 1 after the comparison and only total atrial duration activation (dA) reached statistical significance (113.3 +/- 17.2 msec vs 120.8 +/- 14.2 msec, subjects after CR vs before CR, p < 0.01). CR could improve intra-atrial activation in subjects after MI, but the consequences of hemodynamic adjustment of the trained heart must undergo a more accurate evaluation to verify if CR can prevent adverse arrhythmogenic complications of MI through cardiovascular performance improvement.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: does everybody need one?

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has emerged as an effective, but expensive, therapy for arrhythmic sudden cardiac death. ICD use has been increasing by 20% to 30% per year. Clinical trials have shown that the ICD can be effective for both the primary prevention and the secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in selected populations. Despite the available trial evidence, several issues pertaining to ICD use remain unresolved, including the treatment of patients not represented in clinical trials, the optimal selection of patients who will benefit from an ICD, the duration of benefit from an ICD, the quality of life for patients with an ICD, and both the cost-effectiveness and the cost impact of the ICD. These considerations are discussed in this article.

Amiodarone -- waxed and waned and waxed again

Amiodarone has been used as an anti-arrhythmic drug since the 1970s and has an established role in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Although considered to be a class III anti-arrhythmic, amiodarone also has class I, II and IV actions, which gives it a unique pharmacological and anti-arrhythmic profile. Amiodarone is a structural analogue of thyroid hormone and some of its anti-arrhythmic properties and toxicity may be attributable to interactions with nuclear thyroid hormone receptors. The lipid solubility of amiodarone gives it an exceptionally long half-life. Oral amiodarone takes days to work in ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but iv. amiodarone has immediate effect and can be used in life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Intravenous amiodarone administered after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation improves survival to hospital admission. Many survivors of myocardial infarction (MI) die during the subsequent year, probably due to ventricular arrhythmia. Amiodarone reduces sudden death after MI and this benefit is predominantly observed in patients with preserved cardiac function. Sudden cardiac death, predominantly due to ventricular arrhythmias, is also commonly seen in patients with heart failure. The Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en lsuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina (GESICA) and Estudio Piloto Argentino de Muerte Subita y Amiodarona (EPAMSA) trials showed survival benefit of amiodarone in heart failure, whereas Congestive Heart Failure-Survival Trial of Anti-arrhythmic Therapy (CHF-STAT) did not. Subsequent meta-analysis established a survival benefit of amiodarone in heart failure. Implanted Cardioverter Def ibrillators (ICDs) also give survival benefit to patients at risk of sudden death. In patients with a history of ventricular fibrillation or haemodynamically-compromising ventricular tachycardia, ICDs have been shown to be superior to anti-arrhythmic drugs, principally amiodarone. Further analysis has been undertaken to ascertain which patients are most likely to benefit from ICDs, as these are more expensive than treatment with amiodarone. Patients with severely depressed ejection fractions should be the first to be considered for ICDs. A new indication for amiodarone is atrial fibrillation or flutter. Amiodarone is effective in chronic and recent onset atrial fibrillation and orally or iv. for atrial fibrillation after heart surgery. In atrial fibrillation amiodarone is more than or equi-effective with flecainide, quinidine, racemic sotalol, propafenone and diltiazem and therefore should be considered for first line therapy. Amiodarone is also safe and effective in controlling refractory tachyarrhythmias in infants and is safe after cardiac surgery.

Role of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Patients at Risk for Sudden Cardiac Death: An Evidence-Based Review

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for more than half of all cardiac deaths occurring each year in the United States. Although it has several causes, patients at greatest risk are those with coronary artery disease and impaired left ventricular function, heart failure secondary to ischemia or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, and survivors of cardiac arrest. The presence of asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias, positive signal-averaged electrocardiogram (ECG), low heart rate variability index, or inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation increases the risk. In primary prevention trials in patients with ischemic heart disease, beta-blockers reduced both total mortality and SCD, whereas class I antiarrhythmic drugs, especially class IC, increased mortality. Among class III agents, d,l-sotalol and dofetilide have a neutral effect on mortality, whereas d-sotalol increases mortality. Amiodarone has a neutral effect on total and cardiac mortality but does reduce the risk of arrhythmic death and cardiac arrest. Three primary prevention trials in patients with ischemic heart disease were conducted with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Patients with low ejection fractions (EFs), asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias, and inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation had significant reductions in total, cardiac, and arrhythmic death with ICDs compared with either no drug therapy or conventional antiarrhythmic agents. The ICDs did not reduce mortality in patients with low EFs and a positive signal-averaged ECG undergoing coronary bypass graft. In those with heart failure, beta-blockers reduced total and SCD mortality, but dofetilide and amiodarone had a neutral effect on mortality. In the secondary prevention of SCD, antiarrhythmic drugs alone generally are not thought to improve survival. In three trials in patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, or survivors of SCD, ICDs reduced cardiac and arrhythmic mortality. Total mortality, however, was significantly reduced in only one of these trials. The role of antiarrhythmic drugs in secondary prevention of SCD is limited to patients in whom ICD is inappropriate or in combination with ICD. Antiarrhythmics can be given selectively with ICDs to decrease episodes of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation to reduce ICD discharges, to suppress episodes of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia that trigger ICD discharges, to slow the rate of ventricular tachycardia to increase hemodynamic stability, to allow effective antitachycardia pacing, or to suppress supraventricular arrhythmias.

Current utilization trends for beta-blockers in cardiovascular disease

Beta blockers have repeatedly demonstrated their therapeutic value in the treatment of a variety of diseases; as a result, multiple treatment guidelines advocate the use of beta blockers. Despite these guidelines, the use of beta blockers is remarkably low. Numerous factors that influence the trends of drug use include pharmaceutical advertisements, physician legal concerns, marketing influences, outdated therapeutic contraindications, and patient and physician demographics. Recent primary evidence from randomized clinical trials has demonstrated a significant benefit to patients with heart failure when beta-blocker therapy is added to standard therapy. To ensure proper treatment, continuing efforts must be made to provide patients with appropriate therapy that is proven to reduce the risks of mortality and morbidity.

Adjunctive therapies in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes

Survival after myocardial infarction has been improving steadily in recent decades, in part because of more effective adjunctive medical therapies. However, the issue of underutilization of effective medical therapies remains. Adjunctive therapy for acute myocardial infarction should include aspirin, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lipid-lowering agents, all of which improve survival in the treatment and secondary prevention of myocardial infarction. This review presents the current knowledge supporting the use of specific adjunctive pharmacologic agents and also discusses the current status of other agents that are emerging or controversial.

Ventricular tachycardia syndromes

Better understanding of the underlying mechanism and substrate of different VTs has made it possible to tailor treatment strategies properly. The advent of sophisticated device-based therapy and of more precise and effective catheter ablation approaches will expand clinicians' ability to gain control of this multifaceted arrhythmia syndrome.

Innovative pharmacologic approaches to cardiopulmonary resuscitation

The survival rate of patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation is 5 to 15%. New cardiopulmonary resuscitation treatment approaches under investigation include the use of vasopressin as a vasopressor, amiodarone for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and adenosine antagonists (i.e., theophylline) for bradyasystolic rhythms. More innovative approaches include the use of thyroid hormone and endothelin.

Effect of dofetilide in patients with recent myocardial infarction and left-ventricular dysfunction: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Arrhythmias cause much morbidity and mortality after myocardial infarction, but in previous trials, antiarrhythmic drug therapy has not been convincingly effective. Dofetilide, a new class III agent, was investigated for effects on all-cause mortality and morbidity in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction.

METHODS

In 37 Danish coronary-care units, 1510 patients with severe left-ventricular dysfunction (wall motion index < or = 1.2, corresponding to ejection fraction < or = 0.35) were enrolled in a randomised, double-blind study comparing dofetilide (n=749) with placebo (n=761). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac and arrhythmic mortality and total arrhythmic deaths. Analyses were by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

No significant differences were found between the dofetilide and placebo groups in all-cause mortality (230 [31%] vs 243 [32%]), cardiac mortality (191 [26%] vs 212 [28%]), or total arrhythmic deaths (129 [17%] vs 140 [18%]). Atrial fibrillation or flutter was present in 8% of the patients at study entry. In these patients, dofetilide was significantly better than placebo at restoring sinus rhythm (25 of 59 vs seven of 56; p=0.002). There were seven cases of torsade de pointes ventricular tachycardia, all in the dofetilide group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with severe left-ventricular dysfunction and recent myocardial infarction, treatment with dofetilide did not affect all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, or total arrhythmic deaths. Dofetilide was effective in treating atrial fibrillation or flutter in this population.

Profiling risk from arrhythmic or hemodynamic death

Congestive heart failure is increasing in prevalence and, despite recent advances in therapy, mortality remains high. Sudden cardiac death (SCD) represents a significant percentage of overall mortality, accounting for almost 1 in 2 deaths in patients with congestive heart failure. In patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction or mild degrees of functional impairement, overall annual mortality is low, although a significant portion of the deaths are sudden; on the other hand, in advanced heart failure annual mortality increases, but SCD contributes to it to a lesser degree. The mechanisms of SCD in heart failure are multiple, including ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, bradyarrhythmias, electromechanical dissociation, acute coronary events, and thromboembolic events. Only a minority of patients with advanced heart failure or on the waiting list for heart transplant experience SCD as a consequence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The availability of effective therapies to prevent sudden arrhythmic death, such as that provided by automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators, may help to reduce the burden of SCD in congestive heart failure, but major efforts will be needed to identify the candidates who may benefit from this approach.

Antiarrhythmic agents and proarrhythmia

The Vaughn Williams classification divides antiarrhythmic agents into four groups according to their effects on various ion channels. Class I agents block sodium channels and are subdivided into three groups. The use of class Ia agents is gradually on the decline, secondary to lack of a favorable risk/benefit ratio. Class Ib agents include lidocaine, which is extensively used for the acute treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Class Ic drugs are not advisable for patients with structural cardiac abnormalities secondary to a high risk of proarrhythmia. They are mainly used for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. beta blockers form class II. Class III agents, such as amiodarone and sotalol, prolong action potential duration and repolarization and are among the most widely used antiarrhythmics. They are the subject of active research, and newer agents are being developed. Calcium-channel blockers are grouped under class IV. Digoxin and adenosine have unique antiarrhythmic properties, which can be useful in the management of selected patients. All antiarrhythmic drugs have the potential to provoke arrhythmias and, therefore, should be used with caution. The risk of proarrhythmia is increased in patients with abnormal cardiac substrate, with electrolyte abnormalities, and during drug initiation. Correction of electrolyte imbalance and prevention of bradycardia while the drug is metabolized and/or excreted are the cornerstones of proarrhythmia management.

Salutary antiarrhythmic effect of combining a K channel blocker and a beta-blocker in a canine model of 7-day-old myocardial infarction

We sought to examine whether the antiarrhythmic effect of E4031 (E), or I(Kr) channel blocker, is affected by beta-adrenergic stimulation using isoproterenol (Iso) or by beta-adrenergic blockade (betaB) using, ONO1101, in a canine myocardial infarction model. Electrophysiologic studies were performed in 10 dogs with 7-day-old myocardial infarctions. Local QT intervals were measured at 47 sites on the infarcted myocardium using a mapping electrode. QT dispersion (QTd), as defined by the coefficient of variation of QT intervals, was obtained. Inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias was examined by programmed stimulation. These procedures were repeated during administration of E, E + Iso, and E + betaB. The effect of prolonging local QT intervals by E was counteracted by Iso, and was accentuated by betaB. The amount of prolongation was dependent on the baseline QT intervals, and QTd showed a tendency to decrease with E, to increase with E + Iso, and significantly decreased with E + betaB. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in a half of dogs with E + Iso, but were not induced with E + betaB. In the presence of adrenergic activation, I(Kr) blockers may exhibit a decreased antiarrhythmic effect. Beneficial synergism can be expected when an I(Kr) blocker is combined with a beta-blocker in the subacute phase of myocardial infarction.

Electrophysiological changes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition after myocardial infarction

To investigate whether prevention of remodeling would translate into a more stable electrophysiological profile, the investigators randomized 56 patients to treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition or placebo for 3 months after myocardial infarction. Programmed electrical stimulation revealed no significant differences in inducibility of monomorphic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), whereas ventricular fibrillation (VF) tended to be lower in the ACE-inhibitor group. Effective refractory periods were consistently longer, and dispersion of refractoriness was significantly shorter in the ACE-inhibitor group. The investigators conclude that in this small patient group ACE inhibition may mildly add to a more stable electrophysiological profile.

E 047/1: a new class III antiarrhythmic agent

The efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of E 047/1, an amiodarone derivative, were evaluated in patients with acute supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmia. In an open, nonrandomized prospective multicenter trial, 20 patients were treated with three different i.v. dosage regimens of E 047/1. Arrhythmia termination indicated efficacy. Pharmacokinetics were determined by measurements of drug plasma levels. Safety was judged by changes of blood pressure, heart rate, ECG parameters, and appearance of adverse events. For local tolerability, effects at the site of infusion were assessed. In patients with atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter, drug plasma levels and prolongation of QT interval were correlated with efficacy. In 10 (50%) patients, therapeutic intervention with E 047/1 was successful. Drug plasma levels rapidly decreased within 1 h after administration. Blood pressure values and ECG parameters stayed constant during the observation period. Proarrhythmic effects were not observed. As adverse events, vertigo, vomiting, and nausea in three (15%) and hypotension in one (5%) patient, respectively, occurred in the high-dose bolus regimen only. At the site of infusion, no adverse effects were found. No dependency between drug plasma levels and arrhythmia termination was found. E 047/1 has proven to be efficient and safe in the treatment of arrhythmia. E 047/1 is characterized by rapid plasma elimination, absence of proarrhythmic or cardiodepressive effects, mild adverse events, and excellent local tolerability. For further investigation, we recommend a combined bolus- and weight-adapted infusion regimen.

Proper use of antiarrhythmic therapy for reduction of mortality after myocardial infarction

In this review, we summarise Vaughan Williams' classification of antiarrhythmic agents and the trials that have explored their efficacy in reducing mortality after myocardial infarction (MI). After analysing the data, it is clear that there is no role for class I antiarrhythmic agents as prophylaxis after MI since their use has been associated with increased mortality. Class II agents, i.e. beta-blockers, have demonstrated a reduction in mortality in combined and individual trials which extended for up to 6 years after the initial event. The class III drug, d,l-sotalol has been shown to have possible benefit, whereas its isomer without any beta-blocking properties, dexsotalol, has been shown to increase the incidence of arrhythmias. Amiodarone appears to reduce the incidence of deaths due to arrhythmia and sudden deaths without changing overall mortality. As a group, the calcium antagonists, class IV agents, have not been shown to reduce mortality and, in the case of nifedipine, may even increase it. Verapamil has been shown to be beneficial in one large study and may have a role in those patients in whom the use of beta-blockers is contraindicated. At this time, we recommend early implementation of beta-blockers for all patients without contraindications after MI. Further studies evaluating implantable defibrillators as primary and secondary prevention have provided significant risk reductions in certain high risk patient subsets. Future efforts will need to focus on more accurate risk stratification of post-MI patients and the role of both defibrillators and, possibly, amiodarone in improving survival.

[Predictors of sudden death in coronary artery disease]

Although advances in the management of acute myocardial infarction have resulted in a decline in long-term risk of sudden death, it continues to be high in certain subsets of patients. Thus, it is important to identify and treat these patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.40, frequent premature ventricular ectopy on Holter monitoring, late potentials on signal-averaged electrocardiogram, impaired heart rate variability, abnormal baroreflex sensitivity and inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during electrophysiological study are predictors of sudden death and arrhythmic events. Although the negative predictive value of each factor is high, the positive predictive accuracy is low. Several tests can be combined to obtain higher positive predictive values. In fact, in some studies combined noninvasive tests have been used to select patients for ventricular stimulation study. Some preventive treatment can be applied in these patients. Available data do not justify prophylactic therapy with amiodarone in high-risk survivors of acute myocardial infarction. Sudden death and total mortality have been significantly reduced in postinfarction patients by long-term beta blockade. Hence, beta blockers should be given to all patients with acute myocardial infarction who do not have contraindications to their use. The MADIT study has shown the beneficial effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator in reducing mortality in patients with prior myocardial infarction, an ejection fraction less than 0.36, asymptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia, unsuppressable by procainamide. Besides, several studies are under way to evaluate the prophylactic use of implantable defibrillator for improving survival in high-risk patients.

Risk stratification after acute myocardial infarction in the reperfusion era

Historically, risk stratification for survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has centered on 3 principles: assessment of left ventricular function, detection of residual myocardial ischemia, and estimation of the risk for sudden cardiac death. Although these factors still have important prognostic implications for these patients, our ability to predict adverse cardiac events has significantly improved over the last several years. Recent studies have identified powerful predictors of adverse cardiac events available from the patient history, physical examination, initial electrocardiogram, and blood testing early in the evaluation of patients with AMI. Numerous studies performed in patients receiving early reperfusion therapy with either thrombolysis or primary angioplasty have emphasized the importance of a patent infarct related artery for long-term survival. The predictive value of a variety of noninvasive and invasive tests to predict myocardial electrical instability have been under active investigation in patients receiving early reperfusion therapy. The current understanding of the clinically important predictors of clinical outcomes in survivors of AMI is reviewed in this article.

Amiodarone: clinical trials

Amiodarone is an antiarrhythmic agent commonly used in the treatment of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This article reviews the results and clinical implications of primary and secondary prevention trials in which amiodarone was used in one of the treatment arms. Key post-myocardial infarction primary prevention trials include the European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (CAMIAT), both of which demonstrated that amiodarone reduced arrhythmic but not overall mortality. In congestive heart failure patients, amiodarone was studied as a primary prevention strategy in two pivotal trials: Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiac en Argentina (GESICA) and Amiodarone in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and Asymptomatic Ventricular Arrhythmia (CHF-STAT). Amiodarone was associated with a neutral overall survival and a trend toward improved survival in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients in CHF/STAT and improved survival in GESICA. In post-myocardial infarction patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and a depressed ejection fraction, the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) statistically improved survival compared to the antiarrhythmic drug arm, most of whose patients were taking amiodarone. In patients with histories of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, the Cardiac Arrest Study in Seattle: Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) trial demonstrated that empiric amiodarone lowered arrhythmic recurrence rates compared to other drugs guided by serial Holter or electrophysiologic studies. However, arrhythmic death rates were high in both treatment arms of the study. Several secondary prevention trials, including the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Study (AVID), the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), and the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), have demonstrated the superiority of ICD therapy compared to empiric amiodarone in improving overall survival. Based on the above findings, amiodarone is safe to use in post-myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure patients that need antiarrhythmic therapy. Although amiodarone is effective in treating malignant arrhythmias, high-risk patients should be considered for an ICD as frontline therapy.

Implantable defibrillators and antiarrhythmic drugs in patients at risk for lethal arrhythmias

The high mortality rate and frequency of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with congestive heart failure has prompted numerous clinical trials aimed at reducing mortality by addressing arrhythmic death. Recently completed trials have suggested that for patients who have survived cardiac arrest, the preferred treatment may be an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). From the standpoint of primary prevention, implantable defibrillators and amiodarone have received the most attention. It remains unclear, however, to which patients these studies apply, and if and how the results might be generalized. No available studies confirm an additional benefit of pharmacologic or device-based antiarrhythmic therapy beyond that offered by optimal treatment with beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lipid-lowering drugs in the majority of patients with cardiomyopathy. Clinical trials are ongoing to address these issues.

Meta-analysis of antiarrhythmic drug trials

During the past 15 years, the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs has been investigated for reducing premature death in patients at high risk of arrhythmia. Whereas the benefits of beta-blocker therapy are well established, a reduction in mortality with other antiarrhythmic drugs remains unproved and in some cases, there is evidence of increased mortality with class I and some class III agents. A limitation of individual clinical trials is inadequate sample size to detect significant differences between interventions. Meta-analysis, by combining results from multiple clinical trials, provides a technique to overcome sample size limitations and assess the benefits and limitations of an intervention. Thirteen randomized clinical trials evaluated the role of prophylactic amiodarone in patients at risk of death from cardiac arrhythmias. Whereas 3 of these studies reported a reduction in mortality, several others revealed no benefits of amiodarone. Because neither trial was designed to detect reductions in total mortality, it remained unclear whether the beneficial effect of amiodarone on arrhythmic death and resuscitated ventricular fibrillation translated into a beneficial effect on total mortality. To address this, a meta-analysis was performed from the 13 trials of amiodarone in patients after an acute myocardial infarction or with congestive heart failure. The results showed a significant reduction in mortality and in arrhythmic death with amiodarone.

Beta-blockers and amiodarone for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

Sudden cardiac death remains a major public health care problem, generally occurring in patients with ventricular dysfunction. Beta-blockers, already of proven benefit for patients after myocardial infarction, have recently been shown to improve functional status and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure. Amiodarone, a potent antiarrhythmic drug, was recently studied in a number of randomized clinical trials involving patients with heart failure and patients after myocardial infarction. Routine use of amiodarone cannot be recommended in these patient groups, but serious adverse outcomes were not observed. When antiarrhythmic drug therapy is required, amiodarone is the drug of choice for patients with structural heart disease.

Interactions of antiarrhythmic drugs with implantable defibrillator therapy for atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have proven highly successful in the treatment of recurrent ventricular and atrial arrhythmias. Despite their high efficacy in terminating arrhythmias, concomitant therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs in ICD recipients remains common. Antiarrhythmic drugs are employed in an attempt to to limit patient exposure to high-energy shocks, primarily by reducing the number of arrhythmia reccurrences, suppressing coexisting arrhythmias, affecting rate and organization of tachycardias, and increasing efficacy of painless pacing therapies. Data regarding interaction of antiarrhythmic drugs with ICDs are incomplete and mostly based on animal models; however, it is clear that antiarrhythmic drugs affect all aspects of function of devices such as defibrillation threshold, pacing threshold, and sensing of both atrial and and ventricular arrhythmias. Because significant change in any of these functions may result in a nonfunctional device, and magnitude of drug effect in an individual patient is unpredictable, careful assessment of ICD function after an institution of therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs is mandatory.

Management of ventricular arrhythmias: a trial-based approach

Sudden cardiac death accounts for approximately 300,000 deaths annually in the U.S., and most of these are secondary to ventricular tachycardia (VT) and fibrillation in patients with coronary artery disease. Most patients with cardiac death die before reaching the hospital, which brought about a tremendous amount of research focused at identifying patients at high risk. Several trials were initiated to test the effectiveness of various therapeutic measures in these high-risk patients. A history of myocardial infarction, depressed left ventricular function and nonsustained VT have all been identified as independent risk factors for future arrhythmic death. Similarly, patients with a history of sustained VT or a history of sudden cardiac death are a high-risk group and should be aggressively evaluated and treated. The purpose of this article is to discuss risk stratification and primary prevention of sustained ventricular arrhythmias. We also review the recent secondary prevention trials and discuss the options available in the management of patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias.

Sudden cardiac death

SCD continues to be an important cause of death and morbidity. Despite expanding insight into the mechanisms causing SCD, the population at high risk is not being effectively identified. Although there is still much to do in the management phase of SCD (predicting the efficacy of various therapies), recent clinical trials have helped define the relative risks and benefits of therapies in preventing SCD. Trials are underway to determine whether treating other patient populations, including asymptomatic patients after MI, will improve survival rate. The approach to reducing mortality rate will always be multifaceted; primary prevention of coronary artery disease and prompt salvage of jeopardized myocardium are 2 important aspects of this approach. In addition to interventions for MI, such as myocardial revascularization when indicated, simple and easily administered therapies that are likely to remain the most effective prophylactic interventions are aspirin, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and cholesterol-lowering agents. However, the MADIT and AVID data clearly demonstrate a role for ICD therapy in a subgroup of patients who have VT/VF and are at risk of cardiac arrest. Even though the absolute magnitude of benefit associated with ICDs is still to be determined, the AVID study and other recent reports provide convincing evidence that patients who have VT/VF fare better with ICDs than with antiarrhythmic drug therapy. For the high-risk population described in this article, in addition to aggressive anti-ischemic and heart failure therapy, ICDs are now a mainstay of life-saving treatment. Still to be surmounted is the challenge of identifying patients who have nonischemic substrates and of providing them with the appropriate therapy. Guided by genetic studies and new insight into the mechanisms of such problems as congenital long QT syndrome, life-saving and life-enhancing therapies may soon be available for the management of SCD.

Amiodarone and "primary" prevention of sudden death: critical review of a decade of clinical trials

Several trials have evaluated the role of amiodarone in decreasing mortality in patients at high risk of developing sudden death. Current evidence does not support the prophylactic use of amiodarone in myocardial infarction (MI) survivors with a depressed left ventricular function and/or frequent or complex ventricular ectopy. Some postinfarction trials (e.g., the Spanish Study of Sudden Death [SSSD]) found mortality rates in controls much lower than the expected figures. Other postinfarction trials--the European Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial (CAMIAT)--despite observing a 2-year mortality rate of about 15% as expected, could not demonstrate a significant reduction in mortality. Amiodarone decreases the risk of sudden death in postinfarction patients by about 35%. In patients with a history of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, evidence is not sufficiently strong to use amiodarone for prevention of sudden death. The 2 major trials on such patients, Group for the Study of Survival in Heart Failure in Argentina (Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiaca en Argentina or GESICA) and the Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure (STAT-CHF), arrived at conflicting results. Meta-analyses have been performed to overcome the small sample size of these trials, with the aim of assessing the benefit of amiodarone on total mortality. Differences among the recruited populations make it difficult to extract clinically applicable conclusions from these overviews. Even accepting that amiodarone might decrease total mortality by 10%, it is difficult to identify the patients for whom such a beneficial effect applies. A practical consequence of amiodarone trials is that this drug can be used rather safely in patients with left ventricular dysfunction of any etiology as, in contrast to some class I agents, it does not increase mortality. Therefore, amiodarone is the drug of choice when antiarrhythmic drug treatment is indicated in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

New advances in class III antiarrhythmic drug therapy

During the past 10 years there has been a major shift in antiarrhythmic drug development from class I to class III antiarrhythmic agents. The first two class III antiarrhythmic drugs that became available, sotalol and amiodarone, also have potent antiadrenergic actions. Newer antiarrhythmic drugs either block a specific ionic current (e.g., dofetilide-induced blockade of the rapidly activating component of the delayed rectifier potassium current) or block multiple ionic channels (e.g., ibutilide and azimilide) in order to prolong atrial and ventricular action potentials without other specific pharmacologic effects. Recent data suggest that these new class III antiarrhythmic drugs are highly effective for treating patients with rhythm disorders with an acceptable degree of proarrhythmia. This manuscript reviews the newer class III agents' effectiveness in treating atrial and ventricular arrhythmias and the recent studies examining drug-induced prolongation of atrial repolarization to prevent or terminate postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Concentration-dependent block of sodium current in guinea pig ventricular myocytes by a class III antiarrhythmic agent, MS-551

Although MS-551 is classified as a class III antiarrhythmic agent (K+ channel blocker), its effect on the Na+ channel has not been fully characterized. We investigated the effect of MS-551 on the Na+ current (I(Na)) in isolated guinea pig ventricular myocytes. MS-551 blocked I(Na) in a concentration-dependent manner at a holding potential of -140 mV. The concentration-response curve revealed that the median inhibitory concentration (IC50) for the block of resting channel was 292 +/- 20 microM with a Hill coefficient of 1 (n = 11). Although MS-551, 300 microM, did not show a use-dependent block, it shifted the steady-state inactivation curve in a hyperpolarizing direction by 6.3 +/- 0.8 mV and delayed the recovery process from long depolarization. This delay was considered to be related to the drug unbinding and was expressed by a triple exponential function. The slowest component had a time constant of 409 +/- 35 ms, and the proportion of the amplitude of this component to the total current amplitude was 14 +/- 3% (n = 6). The IC50 for the inactivated Na+ channel was thus estimated to be 169 microM at maximum. These results suggest that MS-551 has a low affinity for both the resting and inactivated Na+ channel.

Intravenous amiodarone for ventricular arrhythmias: overview and clinical use

Numerous pharmacological agents with varying cellular electrophysiological effects are available to treat cardiac arrhythmias. Amiodarone is predominantly a Vaughan Williams Class III agent, but also possesses electrophysiological characteristics of the other three Vaughan Williams classes (Class I and IV and minor Class II effects). Amiodarone's primary mechanism is to prolong the cardiac action potential and repolarization time leading to an increased refractory period and reduced membrane excitability. The efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (IV) amiodarone for acute treatment of recurrent and refractory ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation has been demonstrated in clinical trials. The ARREST trial, a randomized trial comparing IV amiodarone to placebo, found a significant improvement in the proportion of patients surviving to the emergency department following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in amiodarone-treated patients. Intravenous amiodarone is an effective anti-arrhythmic agent for the acute treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and represents an important treatment option for emergency anti-arrhythmic therapy for patients suffering from cardiac arrest.