Effects of acute and prolonged administration of propafenone on internal defibrillation in the pig

Favorable effects of flecainide in transvenous internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of intravenous (IV) flecainide on defibrillation energy requirements in patients treated with low-energy internal atrial cardioversion.

BACKGROUND

Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is becoming a more widely accepted therapy for acute episode termination and for implantable atrial defibrillators.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with atrial fibrillation (19 persistent, 5 paroxysmal) underwent elective transvenous cardioversion according to a step-up protocol. After successful conversion in a drug-free state, atrial fibrillation was induced by atrial pacing; IV flecainide (2 mg/kg) was administered and a second threshold was determined. In patients in whom cardioversion in a drug-free state failed notwithstanding a 400- to 550-V shock, a threshold determination was attempted after flecainide.

RESULTS

Chronic persistent atrial fibrillation was converted in 13/19 (68%) patients at baseline and in 16/19 (84%) patients after flecainide. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was successfully cardioverted in all the patients. A favorable effect of flecainide was observed either in chronic persistent atrial fibrillation (13 patients) or in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (5 patients) with significant reductions in energy requirements for effective defibrillation (persistent atrial fibrillation: 4.42+/-1.37 to 3.50+/-1.51 J, p < 0.005; paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: 1.68+/-0.29 to 0.84+/-0.26 J, p < 0.01). In 14 patients not requiring sedation, the favorable effects of flecainide on defibrillation threshold resulted in a significant reduction in the scores of shock-induced discomfort (3.71+/-0.83 vs. 4.29+/-0.61, p < 0.005). No ventricular proarrhythmia was observed for any shock.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous flecainide reduces atrial defibrillation threshold in patients treated with low-energy internal atrial cardioversion. This reduction in threshold results in lower shock-induced discomfort. Additionally, flecainide may increase the procedure success rate in patients with chronic persistent atrial fibrillation.

Do the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on defibrillation efficacy vary among different shock waveforms?

This study was designed to extend our knowledge on how pharmacological modification of defibrillation efficacy is associated with shock waveform. In 35 anesthetized dogs, the baseline transcardiac DFT was determined using 12-ms monophasic and three biphasic waveforms (10 ms-2 ms, 8 ms-4 ms, and 6 ms-6 ms). Twenty-eight dogs were then treated with either lidocaine (n = 7), mexiletine (n = 7), dofetilide (n = 7), or MS-551 (n = 7), while 7 dogs were left untreated to confirm the reproducibility of DFT data. Subsequently, DFT measurements were repeated in all dogs. Waveform related differences of the baseline DFT were significant, and the monophasic DFT was higher than any of the biphasic DFTs. Lidocaine increased DFT by 11% +/- 12% (12-ms monophasic), 20% +/- 20% (10 ms-2 ms, P < 0.05), 13% +/- 20% (8 ms-4 ms), and 12% +/- 10% (6 ms-6 ms, P < 0.05). With infusion of mexiletine, the DFT increased by 17% +/- 16% (P < 0.05), 9% +/- 12%, 10% +/- 10% (P < 0.05), and 4% +/- 15%, respectively. Both dofetilide and MS-551 significantly decreased the DFT regardless of the pulse waveform (dofetilide: from -18% +/- 19% to -24% +/- 19%, MS-551; from -18% +/- 11% to -32% +/- 6%). In all drug groups, waveform related differences in DFT remained significant. These results support the view that the advantages of biphasic shock waveforms are not lessened by treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs.

Mechanism of antiarrhythmic drug-induced changes in defibrillation threshold: role of potassium and sodium channel conductance

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine which ion current predominantly affects defibrillation outcomes by using specific pharmacologic probes (lidocaine [a sodium channel blocking agent] and cesium [an outward potassium channel blocking agent]) in 26 swine.

BACKGROUND

The effect of a drug on sodium or potassium channel conductance, or both, may affect defibrillation threshold values. However, it is unknown which ion channel predominates.

METHODS

Each pig was randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with two treatment phases: group 1 = placebo (D5W) in treatment phase I followed by placebo plus cesium in treatment phase II (n = 6); group 2 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus placebo (n = 7); group 3 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus cesium (n = 7); group 4 = placebo followed by placebo plus placebo (n = 6). Defibrillation threshold values and electrocardiographic measurements were obtained at baseline and at treatment phases I and II.

RESULTS

Lidocaine increased defibrillation threshold values from baseline by 71% in group 2 (p = 0.02) and by 92% in group 3 (p < 0.01). There were no changes in defibrillation threshold values from baseline to D5W in groups 1 and 4. When D5W was added to lidocaine in group 2 and D5W in group 4, there were no significant changes in defibrillation threshold values. However, when cesium was added to lidocaine in group 3, the elevated defibrillation threshold values (mean +/- SD) returned to baseline values (from 15.7 +/- 3.46 to 7.55 +/- 3.19 J, p < 0.01). Cesium added to D5W in group 1 also significantly reduced defibrillation threshold values from 7.10 +/- 1.27 to 4.14 +/- 1.75 J (p < 0.01). The effect of cesium on defibrillation threshold values was similar between groups 1 and 3, regardless of lidocaine, such that these values were reduced by 40 +/- 14% and 51 +/- 18%, respectively (p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Cesium, through potassium blockade, reverses lidocaine-induced elevation in defibrillation threshold values. The magnitude of defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to lidocaine was similar to the defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to placebo. Thus, inhibiting outward potassium conductance and prolonging repolarization decreases defibrillation threshold values independent of sodium channel blockade.

Differential effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold with monophasic versus biphasic shock waveforms

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation waveforms and antiarrhythmic drugs have disparate effects on myocardial excitability and refractoriness, making it likely that antiarrhythmic drugs will interact with one waveform differently than with another. The aim of the present study was to determine if the increase in defibrillation threshold (DFT) induced by lidocaine is similar for electrical shocks with monophasic and biphasic waveforms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-six pentobarbital-anesthetized farm-raised pigs were instrumented with pacing catheters and epicardial defibrillation electrodes. Each pig was assigned to one of four groups: (1) monophasic shock waveform and placebo (5% dextrose in water [D5W]) (n = 7), (2) monophasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7), (3) biphasic shock waveform and placebo (D5W) (n = 5), or (4) biphasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7). DFT was measured at baseline and subsequently during treatment (D5W or lidocaine). In the monophasic waveform groups, DFT increased from baseline in response to lidocaine by 92% (P < .0001), whereas DFT values in response to D5W did not change. In the biphasic waveform groups, DFT values did not change from baseline in response to lidocaine (P = NS), whereas DFT values from baseline in response to D5W significantly decreased by 29% (P = .04). In the monophasic waveform groups, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was significantly different than the change from baseline in response to D5W (92 +/- 29% versus -0.5 +/- 29%, respectively) (P < .0002). In the biphasic waveform groups, however, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was similar to the change from baseline in response to D5W (-5.66 +/- 15% versus -29 +/- 17%, respectively) (P = .48). Furthermore, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine differed significantly between monophasic and biphasic waveform groups (92 +/- 29% versus -5.66 +/- 15%) (P < .0002), whereas the change from baseline in response to D5W did not differ between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (-0.5 +/- 29% versus -29 +/- 17%) (P = .34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo groups, DFT values increased during lidocaine treatment to a much greater degree in the monophasic waveform group than in the biphasic waveform group receiving lidocaine. These data support our hypothesis that antiarrhythmic drugs can affect the defibrillation efficacy of monophasic waveforms differently than that of biphasic waveforms.

Bretylium decreases and verapamil increases defibrillation threshold in pigs

BACKGROUND

Patients with ischemic heart disease may require antianginal and/or antiarrhythmic regimes. These patients may also be candidates for implantable defibrillators. The effects of antiarrhythmics, such as bretylium, or calcium antagonists, such as verapamil, nifedipine, or diltiazem on internal defibrillation efficacy have been inconsistent or are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The effects of bretylium and verapamil on the energy requirements for ventricular defibrillation threshold (DFT) were determined in 92 open-chest anesthetized pigs. Triplicate DFTs were determined before and after intravenous administration of saline or one of four doses of verapamil, or saline or one of three doses of bretylium, in a balanced random order. Bretylium elicited a dose dependent reduction of DFT (F = 2.72 at 3 degrees and 36 degrees of freedom). DFT was significantly reduced with the highest dose of bretylium, (from 5.9 +/- 0.6 J to 4.7 +/- 0.6 J, mean +/- S.E.M.; P < 0.01). However, cardiac massage was sometimes needed at this dose due to low blood pressure immediately after defibrillation. In contrast, there was a positive correlation between DFT and serum verapamil concentration (r = 0.54, P < 0.001). The highest dose of verapamil significantly increased DFT (from 6.3 +/- 0.6 J to 8.2 +/- 1.1 J; P < 0.05), at a serum verapamil concentration of 86.6 +/- 6.8 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that bretylium decreases while verapamil increases the minimum energy requirement for internal defibrillation. Caution is warranted in patients who may be hemodynamically comprised and may be candidates for bretylium therapy or in patients who have marginal DFT value who might be candidates for verapamil therapy.

Interactions between drugs and devices: experimental and clinical studies

It is important to understand the potential interactions between the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and antiarrhythmic therapy in patients who receive pharmacologic therapy as an adjunct to ICD therapy. In our cohort of 101 patients, antiarrhythmic agents were prescribed in 67% of the patients during long-term therapy for the following reasons: to suppress ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation episodes (50%), to lower the rate of ventricular tachycardia (19%), to prevent supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (21%), and for other reasons (10%). The potential influence of antiarrhythmic drugs on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) is the most important issue. In animal studies lidocaine increased the DFT in a dose-dependent manner. Quinidine, procainamide, propafenone, and flecainide did not affect the DFT or, in some cases, led to a small increase. Sotalol even decreased the energy requirements for internal defibrillation. In a prospective investigation we were able to document a significant increase of DFT (from 14.1 + 3.0 to 20.9 + 5.4 J, p < 0.001) by the use of amiodarone (400 mg/day), whereas this effect was not found in patients who received mexiletine (720 mg/day). In conclusion, the DFT or the safety margin for defibrillation should be known before antiarrhythmic agents are administered to patients with an ICD. In case of a small safety margin, the DFT should be reassessed after antiarrhythmic drug therapy is begun.