Sinus arrest and hypotension with combined amiodarone-diltiazem therapy

Calcium channel blockers: spectrum of side effects and drug interactions

Calcium antagonists are a chemically heterogenous group of agents with potent cardiovascular effects which are beneficial in the treatment of angina pectoris, arterial hypertension and cardiac arrhythmias. The main side effects for the group are dose-dependent and the result of the main action or actions of the calcium antagonists, i.e. vasodilatation, negative inotropic effects and antiarrhythmic effects. Pronounced hypotension is reported for the main calcium antagonist drugs; verapamil, diltiazem and nifedipine. While conduction disturbances and bradycardia are seen more often after verapamil and diltiazem, tachycardia, headache and flush are more frequent after nifedipine. Constipation is relatively frequent after verapamil while nifedipine is reported to induce diarrhea in som patients. Idiosyncratic side effects are rare but have been reported from the skin, mouth, musculoskeletal system, the liver and the central nervous system. These side effects include urticarial rashes, gingival hyperplasia, arthralgia, hepathotoxicity and transistory mental confusion or akathisia. Verapamil, diltiazem and possibly also nifedipine have been reported to increase serum digoxin concentrations but the clinical relevance of these drug interactions are not clear. Furthermore, verapamil and diltiazem may potentiate the effects of beta-adrenergic blocking drugs and verapamil may also potentiate the effects of neuromuscular blocking drugs. It is concluded that side effects after calcium antagonist drugs are mostly trivial and transient although they may sometimes be relatively common. Clinically relevant drug interactions are few. Judged from the point of efficacy and safety, calcium antagonists will have a major place in the future pharmacotherapy of several cardiovascular disorders.

Adverse drug reactions in patients with cardiovascular disease

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur frequently in modern medical practice, increasing morbidity and mortality and inflating the cost of care. Patients with cardiovascular disease are particularly vulnerable to ADRs due to their advanced age, polypharmacy, and the influence of heart disease on drug metabolism. The ADR potential for a particular cardiovascular drug varies with the individual, the disease being treated, and the extent of exposure to other drugs. Knowledge of this complex interplay between patient, drug, and disease is a critical component of safe and effective cardiovascular disease management. The majority of significant ADRs involving cardiovascular drugs are predictable and therefore preventable. Better patient education, avoidance of polypharmacy, and clear communication between physicians, pharmacists, and patients, particularly during the transition between the inpatient to outpatient settings, can substantially reduce ADR risk.

Potentially significant drug interactions of class III antiarrhythmic drugs

Class III antiarrhythmic drugs, especially amiodarone (a broad-spectrum antiarrhythmic agent), have gained popularity for use in clinical practice in recent years. Other class III antiarrhythmic drugs include bretylium, dofetilide, ibutilide and sotalol. These agents are effective for the management of various types of cardiac arrhythmias both atrial and ventricular in origin. Class III antiarrhythmic drugs may interact with other drugs by two major processes: pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions. The pharmacodynamic interaction occurs when the pharmacological effects of the object drug are stimulated or inhibited by the precipitant drug. Pharmacokinetic interactions can result from the interference of drug absorption, metabolism and/or elimination of the object drug by the precipitant drug. Among the class III antiarrhythmic drugs, amiodarone has been reported to be involved in a significant number of drug interactions. It is mainly metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 and it is a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2, 2C9, 2D6 and 3A4. In addition, amiodarone may interact with other drugs (such as digoxin) via the inhibition of the P-glycoprotein membrane transporter system, a recently described pharmacokinetic mechanism of drug interactions. Bretylium is not metabolised; it is excreted unchanged in the urine. Therefore the interactions between bretylium and other drugs (including other antiarrhythmic drugs) is primarily through the pharmacodynamic mechanism. Dofetilide is metabolised by CYP3A4 and excreted by the renal cation transport system. Drugs that inhibit CYP3A4 (such as erythromycin) and/or the renal transport system (such as triamterene) may interact with dofetilide. It appears that the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between ibutilide and other drugs is low. This is because ibutilide is not metabolised by CYP3A4 or CYP2D6. However, ibutilide may significantly interact with other drugs by a pharmacodynamic mechanism. Sotalol is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine. The potential for drug interactions due to hepatic enzyme induction or inhibition appears to be less likely. However, a number of drugs (such as digoxin) have been reported to interact with sotalol pharmacodynamically. If concurrent use of a class III antiarrhythmic agent and another drug cannot be avoided or no published studies for that particular drug interaction are available, caution should be exercised and close monitoring of the patient should be performed in order to avoid or minimise the risks associated with a possible adverse drug interaction.

Cardiovascular drug-drug interactions

The drug-drug interactions discussed in this article have either documented or suspected clinical relevance for patients with cardiovascular disease and the clinician involved in the care of these patients. Oftentimes, drug-drug interactions are difficult, if not impossible, to predict because of the high degree of interpatient variability in drug disposition. Certain drug-drug interactions, however, may be avoided through knowledge and sound clinical judgment. Every clinician should maintain a working knowledge of reported drug-drug interactions and an understanding of basic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles to help predict and minimize the incidence and severity of drug-drug interactions.

Antiarrhythmic agents: drug interactions of clinical significance

The management of cardiac arrhythmias has grown more complex in recent years. Despite the recent focus on nonpharmacological therapy, most clinical arrhythmias are treated with existing antiarrhythmics. Because of the narrow therapeutic index of antiarrhythmic agents, potential drug interactions with other medications are of major clinical importance. As most antiarrhythmics are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 enzyme system, pharmacokinetic interactions constitute the majority of clinically significant interactions seen with these agents. Antiarrhythmics may be substrates, inducers or inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes, and many of these metabolic interactions have been characterised. However, many potential interactions have not, and knowledge of how antiarrhythmic agents are metabolised by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system may allow clinicians to predict potential interactions. Drug interactions with Vaughn-Williams Class II (beta-blockers) and Class IV (calcium antagonists) agents have previously been reviewed and are not discussed here. Class I agents, which primarily block fast sodium channels and slow conduction velocity, include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, lidocaine (lignocaine), mexiletine, flecainide and propafenone. All of these agents except procainamide are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 system and are involved in a number of drug-drug interactions, including over 20 different interactions with quinidine. Quinidine has been observed to inhibit the metabolism of digoxin, tricyclic antidepressants and codeine. Furthermore, cimetidine, azole antifungals and calcium antagonists can significantly inhibit the metabolism of quinidine. Procainamide is excreted via active tubular secretion, which may be inhibited by cimetidine and trimethoprim. Other Class I agents may affect the disposition of warfarin, theophylline and tricyclic antidepressants. Many of these interactions can significantly affect efficacy and/or toxicity. Of the Class III antiarrhythmics, amiodarone is involved in a significant number of interactions since it is a potent inhibitor of several cytochrome P450 enzymes. It can significantly impair the metabolism of digoxin, theophylline and warfarin. Dosages of digoxin and warfarin should empirically be decreased by one-half when amiodarone therapy is added. In addition to pharmacokinetic interactions, many reports describe the use of antiarrhythmic drug combinations for the treatment of arrhythmias. By combining antiarrhythmic drugs and utilising additive electrophysiological/pharmacodynamic effects, antiarrhythmic efficacy may be improved and toxicity reduced. As medication regimens grow more complex with the aging population, knowledge of existing and potential drug-drug interactions becomes vital for clinicians to optimise drug therapy for every patient.

Intravenous amiodarone

Intravenous amiodarone was approved in 1995 for the treatment of malignant and resistant ventricular arrhythmia. Although it is an "old drug," much has been learned recently about this complex drug and its application in a variety of cardiac arrhythmias. The objectives of this review were to summarize what is known about intravenous amiodarone, including its pharmacologic and electrophysiologic effects, to review its efficacy for the treatment of patients with highly malignant ventricular arrhythmia and to provide specific information about its clinical use for this and other indications. The studies that were reviewed were selected on the basis of time published (from 1983 to 1995) and the completeness of information provided regarding patient clinical characteristics, drug dosing and methods of evaluation, efficacy analyses, long-term follow-up and complications. The full data from the three controlled trials that formed the basis of the drug's approval are contained in published reports that were also extensively reviewed. Intravenous amiodarone has demonstrable efficacy for the treatment of frequently recurrent destabilizing ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, with suppression rates of 63% to 91% in uncontrolled trials. The three pivotal trials confirmed these findings and demonstrated a dose-response relation, with at least comparable efficacy to bretylium, a drug with a similar indication. The safety profile has also been well described; cardiovascular adverse effects are the most frequent, especially hypotension. Intravenous amiodarone is a useful addition to the drugs available for the treatment of patients with very severe ventricular arrhythmia. Its use in patients with other rhythm disorders appears promising, but final recommendations must await development of definitive data from ongoing clinical trials.

Current drug treatment and treatment patterns with antihypertensive drugs

The 4 major classes of antihypertensive drugs are diuretics, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists. The diuretics have recently regained prominence, largely due to the results of recent controlled trials. These trials in elderly patients demonstrated that low-dose diuretics were effective not only in preventing stroke but also in greatly reducing coronary-related events. Diuretics also decrease left ventricular mass more than the other major drug classes. In addition, they are the most effective drugs for use in combination therapy. By contrast, the safety of calcium antagonists has recently been questioned because of report of increased coronary morbidity and mortality. However, these adverse events may be restricted to the short-acting preparations, especially nifedipine, which causes cardiac stimulation. ACE inhibitors, like beta-blockers, are not only effective in reducing blood pressure, particularly when combined with a diuretic, but also improve angina and decrease postinfarction mortality. They also benefit congestive heart failure, stabilise or improve renal function in hypertensive and diabetic nephropathy and reduce albuminuria. Beta-Blockers are especially effective in reducing sudden cardiac death in patients with coronary heart disease, particularly in postinfarction patients. Final proof of the relative effectiveness of these drugs in preventing morbidity and mortality must await the outcome of large comparative trials currently under way. A recent national survey in the US found that more than 75% of hypertensive patients did not have their hypertension completely controlled. Possible reasons for this disturbing statistic are discussed along with suggestions for improvement.

Calcium antagonists. Drug interactions of clinical significance

The interaction of calcium antagonists, including the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists (e.g. nifedipine), verapamil and diltiazem, with drugs from other classes has major clinical ramifications as the use of drug combinations increases in frequency. Combinations are used in the treatment of disorders ranging from hypertension to cardiac rhythm disturbances, angina pectoris and peripheral vasospastic disease. In this era of organ transplantation, drugs like cyclosporin are coming into potential conflict with an ever-growing list of drugs. Drug combinations used as part of long term therapies are also making their appearance in toxic drug reactions, including antituberculous and anticonvulsant agents. Bronchodilators and H2-blockers also fall into this category of potential culprits of combined drug toxicity, and the interactions of calcium antagonists with beta-blockers and antiarrhythmic agents are also becoming a matter of concern.

Additional antianginal efficacy of amiodarone in patients with limiting angina pectoris

Sixty-three patients with stable angina New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III and a positive stress test despite triple therapy were randomized to a double-blind protocol, receiving either placebo or amiodarone in a dose of 600 mg/day for 10 days, followed by 400 mg/day for an additional 10 days, and then by 200 mg/day over a total period of 2 months. Comparable bicycle exercise times were observed at baseline in the amiodarone group (6.0 +/- 1.6 minutes) and in the placebo group (6.0 +/- 1.8 minutes). With amiodarone, there was a increase in exercise duration of 6.7 +/- 2.2 minutes versus 6.3 +/- 2.2 minutes at 1 month and 7.5 +/- 2.1 minutes versus 6.2 +/- 1.7 minutes at 2 months (p < 0.05). Also, the amiodarone group had a significant decrease in the double product when compared with the placebo group at 1 month (14,134 +/- 3,316 versus 17,570 +/- 4,092 mm Hg/min, p < 0.001) and at 2 months (14,022 +/- 3,303 and 17,298 +/- 4,872 mm Hg/min, p < 0.001). The degree of ST segment depression at peak exercise was also significantly reduced. Combination therapy of amiodarone with conventional antianginal therapy is well tolerated and results in a significant improvement in exercise capacity and a mild reduction of symptoms in patients who have continued, limiting angina pectoris with conventional triple therapy.

Side effects from amiodarone

Amiodarone causes many side effects involving all organ systems. Although most of the side effects are mild and do not limit the use of the drug, there are several that are serious. Since many of these toxic reactions develop only after a prolonged period of therapy, careful follow-up on a regular basis is essential.

A general overview of amiodarone toxicity: its prevention, detection, and management

Although amiodarone is a highly effective antiarrhythmic agent, it has a high incidence of side effects, some of which can be serious or even lethal. With close monitoring, side effects can be found in essentially all patients, but fortunately most of these are mild and well tolerated. Furthermore, many will respond to dosage reduction in a relatively short period of time, ie, days to weeks, which is remarkable considering the long period of time amiodarone has been shown to persist in tissues. There is reasonable evidence that toxicity, particularly the early toxic manifestations with large loading dosages, can be favorably modified by reducing the dosage. Similarly, reducing the maintenance dosage will, in most instances, reduce or eliminate most toxic manifestations. The mechanisms of toxic effects are uncertain, but suggestive evidence exists for and against both an immunologic reaction and an intracellular lysosomal lipoidosis. Principles of use of amiodarone should include individualizing administration of dosages for each patient due to the unusual pharmacokinetic properties of this drug and continuous long-term attempts at using the lowest effective dosage. There are no definite tests that predict amiodarone efficacy or toxicity, but the serum level can be used as a rough guide of absorption and distribution in the attempt to minimize the maintenance dosage. No guidelines regarding screening tests for toxicity can be made at this time since great variability in these tests has been reported, and no evidence exists for their benefit in preventing adverse effects to amiodarone. However, follow-up testing at the intervals noted in the package insert are reasonable and important. The possibility of interactions with drugs already reported and with others not yet reported should always be kept in mind, and appropriate monitoring for clinical evidence of toxicity due to the concomitantly used drugs should be undertaken. Amiodarone can have a tremendous beneficial effect in the proper circumstances, but it is a drug that should command utmost respect because of its side effects and requires constant vigilance from any physician wishing to use it.

Amiodarone in the management of cardiac arrhythmias: current concepts

This article reviews current information on the clinical pharmacology, therapeutic utility, and adverse reactions of amiodarone, with emphasis on guidelines for its rational use.

Combination therapy for cardiac arrhythmias

Combinations of antiarrhythmic agents are often used when single agents are ineffective, only partly effective or poorly tolerated. The theoretical and experimental basis for combination therapy for arrhythmias is the dissimilar electrophysiologic properties of antiarrhythmic agents. Until more is known about the mechanism of drug synergism and drug interactions, the experience gained clinically remains essential to our understanding. Published reports contain numerous data on the effectiveness of various combinations of antiarrhythmic agents, including combinations of class I agents, the combination of a class I agent and a beta-blocking agent or amiodarone, and combinations including a calcium-antagonist agent. Adverse drug interactions, however, can occur, and combinations of certain agents must be avoided or used with caution.

Calcium antagonists--adverse drug interactions

In the clinical management of heart disease, calcium channel blockers are generally prescribed in combination with one or more anti-angina, antiarrhythmic, or antihypertensive agents. Two different mechanisms are involved in drug interactions: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic. In the former, the disposition of one drug is altered by the action of another, causing an increase or decrease in its absorption or its modified distribution, metabolism, or excretion. In pharmacodynamic interactions, the physiologic effects of one drug interfere either directly or indirectly with those of another, for instance, by alterations in fluid or electrolyte balance. This effect may be antagonistic or additive. The present work outlines the possible adverse interactions between the three main calcium antagonists and other therapeutic agents, including digoxin, beta blockers and antiarrhythmic, anesthetic, antihypertensive, antiasthmatic, and antidiabetic drugs and contrast media. Knowledge of these effects is of major clinical importance in the treatment of cardiac patients.

[Sinusal dysfunction secondary to the ingestion of diltiazem, cured by the administration of intravenous calcium]

An elderly patient, receiving long-term oral diltiazem at the usual dosage, presented a sudden attack of junctional bradycardia at 35 b X min-1; this was badly tolerated by the patient. The diltiazem blood level was normal. After recovery, nodal investigations were also normal. The treatment of this accident due to a calcium-blocker is stressed: the intravenous injection of a calcium salt only was sufficient, with a return to near-normal sinus function, so avoiding the necessity of pacing.