Electrophysiologic properties and antiarrhythmic mechanisms of intravenous N-acetylprocainamide in patients with ventricular dysrhythmias

Oral N-acetylprocainamide compared to quinidine plus digoxin in the chronic suppression of atrial flutter in humans

Antiarrhythmic therapy for the suppression of atrial flutter has conventionally entailed the use of a class Ia agent such as quinidine or procainamide. However, atrial flutter often recurs despite the use of these conventional antiarrhythmic regimens. Experimental and clinical evidence suggests that the pharmacologic suppression of atrial flutter may depend on the prolongation of the atrial action potential duration and consequently the voltage-dependent refractoriness. Therefore, the efficacy and tolerance of the class III antiarrhythmic agent N-acetylprocainamide was compared to that of the conventional regimen of the class Ia agent quinidine combined with digoxin (to control ventricular response) in patients with a history of symptomatic sustained atrial flutter. The study was randomized but nonblinded, with a crossover to the alternate regimen if the first failed. Eighteen patients entered the study and were followed for up to 18 months. Of the 12 receiving N-acetylprocainamide (eight randomized and four crossovers), one (8%) failed therapy due to side effects, but none had atrial flutter. Of the 11 receiving quinidine and digoxin (10 randomized and one crossover), three (28%) had a recurrence of atrial flutter, two of whom also had intolerable side effects, and two more (18%) had side effects alone requiring withdrawal of therapy (total 46% failed). The probability of therapeutic success over time was greater (p less than 0.04) for N-acetylprocainamide than for quinidine and digoxin. The data suggest that N-acetylprocainamide may be more effective and better tolerated than the conventional regimen of quinidine plus digoxin. Therefore, large-scale blinded studies of the efficacy of N-acetylprocainamide in the suppression of atrial flutter may be warranted.

A comparison of sotalol and procainamide in symptomatic ventricular tachycardia

The effects of oral sotalol were compared with 1000 and 1500 mg of procainamide in 23 patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia. The predictive value of an induction study after procainamide was assessed. The mean age of the study group was 62 +/- 12 years, and the mean ejection fraction was 32 +/- 16%. The cycle length (CL) of the induced tachycardia, the coupling interval (CI) of the first extrastimulus (in ms), and the number of noninducible (NI) patients are given in the table below. (table; see text) One patient developed torsades during the loading period of sotalol and is included in the number requiring cardioversion (DC). Important proarrhythmic effects (spontaneous occurrence of tachycardia) were seen twice after procainamide. Induction suppression by procainamide predicted success with sotalol (p = 0.0013).

CONCLUSION

Ventricular tachycardia seems to be less often inducible after oral sotalol than after procainamide. The success of procainamide during programmed electrical stimulation predicts the same for sotalol. If ventricular tachycardia remains inducible after oral sotalol, it is faster than after procainamide but slower than the baseline tachycardia. Both drugs slightly prolong refractoriness.

Effects of intravenous N-acetylprocainamide on hemodynamics and left ventricular function in man

N-acetylprocainamide (NAPA) is the active metabolite of procainamide currently undergoing evaluation for its antiarrhythmic properties. Its effects on hemodynamic variables and on ventricular function in man are poorly defined. The effects of intravenously administered NAPA (18 mg/kg over 30 minutes; mean plasma level 40.2 +/- 6.2 micrograms/ml) on hemodynamics and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by radionuclide ventriculography were therefore determined in 14 patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization. The peak effects of the drug with respect to most measured variables were seen at 30 minutes and were still apparent at 60 minutes. NAPA increased heart rate (3% at 10 minutes; p less than 0.01), decreased mean pulmonary arterial pressure (14%; p less than 0.05) and capillary wedge pressure (27%; p less than 0.01), decreased mean arterial pressure (12%; p less than 0.01), cardiac index (8%; p less than 0.01), LV dp/dtmax (9%; p less than 0.05), and stroke work index (17%; p less than 0.01). The LVEF increased 5% (p less than 0.05). There was a trend for the systemic vascular resistance to decrease, but this did not reach statistical significance. The data show that NAPA exerts relatively weak peripheral arteriolar and venodilator effects associated with a mild reduction in contractility and cardiac output but an increase in LVEF in patients with preserved ventricular function.

Comparative electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral procainamide in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias

Thirty-three patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias underwent electrophysiologic testing after intravenous and again after oral procainamide administration. Two groups were identified: group 1 included 15 patients with concordant serum procainamide concentrations with less than a 3 micrograms/ml difference after intravenous (mean 8.6 +/- 2.7) and oral (mean 8.8 +/- 2.7) procainamide administration, with mean N-acetylprocainamide concentrations of 1.0 +/- 0.6 and 6.2 +/- 2.8 micrograms/ml, respectively. Group 2 included 18 patients with discordant serum procainamide concentrations after intravenous (mean 9.5 +/- 5.9 micrograms/ml) and oral (mean 14.1 +/- 5.2 micrograms/ml) procainamide, with mean N-acetylprocainamide concentrations of 0.9 +/- 0.5 and 10.7 +/- 5.7 micrograms/ml, respectively. In group 1, response to programmed stimulation was the same after intravenous and oral procainamide administration, with no inducible ventricular arrhythmia in 5 of 15 patients. In group 2, 3 of 18 patients had no inducible arrhythmia after intravenous compared with 7 of 18 patients after oral procainamide administration. There was a different response to programmed stimulation after oral compared with intravenous procainamide in 6 of 18 patients in group 2 but in none of 15 patients in group 1 (p = 0.02). The effective procainamide concentration was greater than the ineffective concentration in five of the six patients with a discordant response, and the effective route of administration was oral in five of the six patients. The change in ventricular refractoriness in group 1 was similar after intravenous (28 +/- 23 ms) and oral (29 +/- 19 ms) procainamide, whereas in group 2, refractoriness was increased more after oral (33 +/- 21 ms) than intravenous (20 +/- 17 ms) procainamide administration and paralleled the difference in procainamide concentration.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)