Efficacy of combination therapy with mexiletine and a type IA agent for inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmias secondary to coronary artery disease

Control of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation recurrence using combined administration of propafenone and quinidine

The frequent recurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) despite the use of standard antiarrhythmic agents prompted the use of new therapeutic approaches. There are few data on systematic assessment of PAF control with stepwise dose escalation and the use of a drug combination. Low-dose quinidine may promote the efficacy of propafenone by inhibiting its degradation through the cytochrome P450 pathway (CYP2D6). We prescribed propafenone 300 to 450 mg/day to 60 patients with PAF for 8 weeks, and 62% were symptomatically controlled. The 19 refractory patients were randomized in a double-blinded fashion to receive either a higher dose of propafenone (450 to 675 mg/day) or the standard dose of propafenone with low-dose quinidine 150 mg/day, each for an 8-week study period, and subsequently crossed over to the alternative treatment. The resulting serum propafenone concentrations were 259 +/- 208 and 336 +/- 237 mg/day (p >0.5), respectively. Both treatment arms prolonged the time to the first symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence and the interval between attacks, and AF was controlled in 37% of patients. However, the higher dose of propafenone was associated with gastrointestinal side effects not present with the low-dose quinidine combination. Of the 10 refractory patients, 7 were further controlled with a standard dose of propafenone plus quinidine (600 mg/day). Overall, control of PAF was achieved in 85% of patients at the end of 8 months; adverse effects necessitating withdrawal were observed in 6%, and uncontrolled AF in 5% of patients. There was no difference in the mean AF rate during recurrences in all phases, and ventricular proarrhythmia was not seen. This study documents the role of stepwise antiarrhythmic treatment of PAF. The use of a standard dose of propafenone, followed by low-dose quinidine combination to reduce propafenone degradation, and the combined standard dose of propafenone and quinidine may be used to maximize efficacy and tolerability.

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.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of mexiletine

Mexiletine, a class Ib antiarrhythmic agent, is rapidly and completely absorbed following oral administration with a bioavailability of about 90%. Peak plasma concentrations following oral administration occur within 1 to 4 hours and a linear relationship between dose and plasma concentration is observed in the dose range of 100 to 600 mg. Mexiletine is weakly bound to plasma proteins (70%). Its volume of distribution is large and varies from 5 to 9 L/kg in healthy individuals. Mexiletine is eliminated slowly in humans (with an elimination half-life of 10 hours). It undergoes stereoselective disposition caused by extensive metabolism. Eleven metabolites of mexiletine are presently known, but none of these metabolites possesses any pharmacological activity. The major metabolites are hydroxymethyl-mexiletine, p-hydroxy-mexiletine, m-hydroxy-mexiletine and N-hydroxy-mexiletine. Formation of hydroxymethyl-mexiletine, p-hydroxy-mexiletine and m-hydroxy-mexiletine is genetically determined and cosegregates with polymorphic debrisoquine 4-hydroxylase [cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6] activity. On the other hand, CYP1A2 seems to be implicated in the N-oxidation of mexiletine. Various physiological, pathological, pharmacological and environmental factors influence the disposition of mexiletine. Myocardial infarction, opioid analgesics, atropine and antacids slow the rate of absorption, whereas metoclopramide enhances it. Rifampicin (rifampin), phenytoin and cigarette smoking significantly enhance the rate of elimination of mexiletine, whereas ciprofloxacin, propafenone and liver cirrhosis decrease it. Cimetidine, ranitidine, fluconazole and omeprazole do not modify the disposition of mexiletine. Conversely, mexiletine is known to alter the disposition of other drugs, such as caffeine and theophylline. Factors affecting the elimination of mexiletine may be clinically important and dosage adjustments are often necessary.

Comparison of class Ia/Ib versus class III antiarrhythmic drugs for the suppression of inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia associated with coronary artery disease

Previous studies suggest that class Ia drugs are ineffective in suppression of sustained ventricular tachycardia by programmed stimulation. More favorable results have been described with combinations of Ia and Ib drugs and also with class III antiarrhythmic drugs, but there have been no direct comparisons between these 2 regimens. The present study was undertaken to compare the electrophysiologic efficacy and predictors of success of these 2 regimens in patients with ischemic heart disease and inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. The population consisted of 136 patients with documented coronary artery disease. All had sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia inducible during baseline electrophysiologic study and following intravenous procainamide. Follow-up studies were performed with a combination of oral class Ia and Ib or class III antiarrhythmic drugs. A positive response was the inability to induce a sustained ventricular arrhythmia with up to 3 extrastimuli at 2 right ventricular pacing sites. Response rates were 13% for Ia/Ib combination and 19% for class III agents (p = 0.40). Congestive heart failure differentially affected response rates. Only 8% of those responding to Ia/Ib therapy had heart failure compared with 59% of responders to class III (p <0.01). Multivariate analysis identified heart failure (RR 12.2, p = 0.03) as the only parameter with independent predictive value of response to Ia/Ib therapy. These results indicate that congestive heart failure is a potent predictor of a negative response to a combination of class Ia and Ib antiarrhythmic drugs. In this population, class III drugs or nonpharmacologic therapy should be considered as initial treatment.

Electrophysiologic effects and predictors of success of combination therapy with class Ia and Ib antiarrhythmic drugs for sustained ventricular arrhythmias

Antiarrhythmic drugs remain the first line of therapy in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias. Although success with class Ia antiarrhythmic medications has been limited, there is evidence that the addition of a class Ib agent may improve results. A total of 110 consecutive patients referred for electrophysiologic evaluation who had inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias resistant to a class Ia agent underwent repeat electrophysiologic study after the addition of a class Ib drug. Patients with ejection fraction >40% and ventricular fibrillation inducible in the baseline study had an 80% response rate, whereas those with inducible ventricular tachycardia and ejection fraction < or = 40% responded 11% of the time. Responders demonstrated marked prolongation of ventricular refractoriness and slight shortening of the QRS, whereas nonresponders had QRS prolongation and a more modest increase in ventricular refractoriness. Thus, the efficacy of class Ia/Ib combination therapy in patients with inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias refractory to a class Ia drugs alone can be predicted by baseline variables. Marked prolongation of ventricular refractoriness in the absence of QRS prolongation appears to be a key factor in the success of this combination.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with amiodarone and type I agents for treatment of inducible ventricular tachycardia

In a prospective study the efficacy of amiodarone in combination with the three Class I drugs mexiletine, flecainide, or encainide was evaluated consecutively in 12 patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardias (VT) by programmed stimulation. None of the tested drug combinations suppressed induction of sustained VT. The combination of amiodarone with Class IC drugs flecainide and encainide prolonged the cycle length of VT significantly, whereas the combination with mexiletine did not have the same degree of slowing on the VT cycle length. Several proarrhythmic effects occurred during the combination therapy with encainide: (1) frequent, spontaneous recurrences of hemodynamically well tolerated VT in four patients; (2) enhanced inducibility of VT in three patients; (3) impaired termination of VT in three patients. Though a marked increase in QRS and QTc intervals was observed by combined treatment with encainide, no significant correlation could be established between aggravation of arrhythmia and plasma levels of encainide, degree of QRS widening, JT or QTc prolongation. The only predictor for the occurrence of proarrhythmic events was found in left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings suggest that in patients refractory to amiodarone alone or a combination with mexiletine, the combined treatment of amiodarone with other Class IC drugs prolongs the VT cycle length but does not suppress induction of VT during programmed stimulation. Combination therapy of amiodarone with encainide was associated with a high incidence of proarrhythmic effects.

Propafenone-mexiletine combination for the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of combined therapy with propafenone and mexiletine for control of sustained ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND

Combination antiarrhythmic drug therapy may enhance efficacy and lead to control of ventricular arrhythmias in some patients. Few reports have studied the combination of class IB and class IC drugs. Thus, this study was designed to investigate a combination of mexiletine and propafenone in patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia had their clinical arrhythmia induced by programmed stimulation. Procainamide and propafenone alone failed to prevent reinduction of tachycardia in all. Mexiletine was subsequently added to propafenone and programmed stimulation was repeated.

RESULTS

With combination therapy ventricular tachycardia was noninducible in three patients (19%). A fourth who had presented with polymorphic ventricular tachycardia had slow bundle branch reentry (cycle length 500 ms) induced. In the other 12, tachycardia cycle length increased from 262 +/- 60 ms at baseline to 350 +/- 82 ms with propafenone and to 390 +/- 80 ms with propafenone plus mexiletine (p less than 0.0001 compared with baseline). Hemodynamic deterioration requiring defibrillation occurred in six patients at baseline study, in five taking propafenone and in two taking both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of propafenone and mexiletine is effective in suppressing the induction of ventricular tachycardia in some patients refractory to procainamide and propafenone alone. In those in whom ventricular tachycardia could still be induced, the rate was slower and hemodynamically tolerated.

The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial: first CAST ... then CAST-II

The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) was a study designed to test the hypothesis that suppression of ventricular premature complexes after a myocardial infarction would improve survival. Preliminary results showed that suppression of ventricular premature complexes with encainide and flecainide worsened survival, and the CAST continued as the CAST-II with moricizine compared with its placebo. The protocol for the CAST-II was changed to attempt to enroll patients more likely to experience serious arrhythmias. The enrollment time was narrowed to 4 to 90 days after myocardial infarction; the qualifying ejection fraction was lowered to less than or equal to 0.40; a higher dose of moricizine could be used; early titration itself was double-blind with a placebo, and the definition of disqualifying ventricular tachycardia was changed to allow patients with more serious arrhythmias to be entered into the trial. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial-II was subsequently terminated prematurely because 1) patients treated with moricizine had an excessive cardiac mortality rate during the 1st 2 weeks of exposure to the drug, and 2) there appeared to be little chance of showing a long-term survival benefit from treatment with moricizine. This report outlines the rationale behind the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial and the reasons for selection of the drugs used in the CAST and CAST-II.

Effect of the combination of low-dose mexiletine and metoprolol on ventricular arrhythmia

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy is often ineffective or poorly tolerated. Combining antiarrhythmic agents with different electrophysiologic properties may have a synergistic antiarrhythmic effect when compared with each drug alone. If a lower dose of each drug can be used, combination therapy may also result in lower incidence of side effects. The goal of our study was to assess the complementary effect of low-dose mexiletine and metoprolol, when compared with either drug alone. Ten patients with frequent ventricular arrhythmias including 7 patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia were evaluated in an open-label sequential study. The response to drug therapy was evaluated by 24-h continuous EKG monitoring, exercise stress testing, and echocardiogram after each treatment. Combination therapy effectively reduced ventricular arrhythmias in 8 patients (80%) in contrast to only 1 patient (10%) on metoprolol alone and 4 patients (40%) on mexiletine alone. In 5 patients (71%) ventricular tachycardia was abolished. The number of couplets was reduced from 51 +/- 39 to 1.9 +/- 2.4 (p less than 0.01) and total premature ventricular beats from 7790 +/- 9047 to 597 +/- 515 (p = 0.06). Combination therapy was well tolerated without proarrhythmia or precipitation of congestive heart failure. It is concluded that low-dose mexiletine combined with metoprolol is effective in suppressing ventricular arrhythmias in selected patients, and enhances the antiarrhythmic effect of either drug alone without significant side effects.

Evaluation of disopyramide and mexiletine used alone and in combination for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with and without overt heart disease

The efficacies and side effects of disopyramide and mexiletine used alone and in combination were assessed in 29 patients with chronic ventricular arrhythmias. In combination therapy, one half or two thirds of the conventional doses of each drug were administered. Each patient underwent Holter electrocardiographic monitoring during 4 different periods: baseline, disopyramide alone, mexiletine alone and combination of the two drugs. The mean baseline number of ventricular premature complex per hour was 783 +/- 521 (mean +/- SD), which was significantly reduced with all three therapies. Disopyramide alone significantly reduced the ventricular premature complex frequency in patients with organic heart disease (P less than 0.05), but did not significantly reduce the ventricular premature complex frequency in patients with no apparent heart disease. In contrast, mexiletine alone significantly decreased the ventricular premature complex frequency in no apparent heart disease patients (P less than 0.05), but did not significantly reduce the ventricular premature complex frequency in organic heart disease patients. With disopyramide alone, patients having a significant reduction in ventricular premature complexes (greater than or equal to 83% reduction in ventricular premature complexes) or elimination of ventricular tachycardias tended to be more frequently found in organic heart disease than in no apparent heart disease. The opposite was observed with mexiletine alone. QTc interval with disopyramide alone was significantly prolonged, and the prematurity index of ventricular premature complexes was significantly lowered as compared to mexiletine alone or combination therapy (P less than 0.01 for disopyramide versus mexiletine; P less than 0.05 for disopyramide versus combination therapy). During combination therapy, no patients withdrew from the study due to side effects. However, 3 patients receiving single drug therapy withdrew from the study due to severe side effects. Consequently, disopyramide is suggested to be more effective on ventricular premature complexes in organic heart disease than in no apparent heart disease patients, whereas the opposite was true for mexiletine. A combination of disopyramide and mexiletine in smaller doses may provide almost the same or enhanced antiarrhythmic effects, no aggravation of electrocardiographical parameters and less incidence of side effects when compared to the conventional dose of each drug alone.

Effects of combined use of class I antiarrhythmic agents on Vmax of guinea-pig ventricular muscles

The effects of the combined use of class-I antiarrhythmic drugs on the resting potentials (RP), amplitude of action potential (AMP), and Vmax of the action potential were investigated in guinea-pig ventricular papillary muscles that were superfused with oxygenated Krebs-Ringer solution at 35 degrees C. Disopyramide (40 microM) reduced Vmax to 68.6 +/- 3.1% (mean +/- SE, n = 5) of the control with minimal changes in RP and AMP when preparations were stimulated at 1 Hz. The addition of mexiletine (20 microM) to the solution containing disopyramide (40 microM) caused a minimal reduction of Vmax (less than 5%) for the stimulation of 1 Hz, but a significant reduction of Vmax (13% p less than 0.05) when stimulation was increased to 2 Hz. This amount of the reduction is compatible with that obtained by mexiletine alone, suggesting a simple additive Na+ channel inhibition by this drug combination. This additive effect was also observed in the recovery process of Vmax from the use-dependent block induced by train stimuli at 1 Hz. Flecainide (5 microM) reduced Vmax to 58.6 +/- 13.3% (n = 5). The addition of mexiletine to the superfusate with flecainide produced a further depression of 14 +/- 2.6% of Vmax, even at 1 Hz. This depression was larger than that produced by mexiletine, suggesting a synergistic action of the two drugs on the Na+ channel. Such information about the interaction of the class I drug combinations with the Na+ channel may be clinically important.

Role of combination drug therapy with a class IC antiarrhythmic agent and mexiletine for ventricular tachycardia

The combination of mexiletine and a class IC antiarrhythmic agent (encainide, propafenone or flecainide) was evaluated by electrophysiologic testing in 14 patients with a history of sustained ventricular tachycardia whose tachycardia remained inducible during therapy with the class IC drug alone. During the control drug-free state, all patients had inducible ventricular tachycardia, with a mean cycle length of 260 ms (range 190 to 400). During monotherapy with the IC agent the tachycardia remained inducible in each patient, but there was a significant increase in the cycle length to 340 ms (240 to 500) (p less than 0.001). The effective refractory period of the ventricle was not altered. Treatment with mexiletine (oral in 13 and intravenous in 1) was begun and electrophysiologic testing was repeated. Ventricular tachycardia in one patient was rendered noninducible and one patient had arrhythmia aggravation. The tachycardia in the remaining 12 patients remained inducible but its average cycle length increased further to 392 ms (340 to 460) (p = NS). Nine patients had rate slowing and the average cycle length of the ventricular tachycardia in this group was significantly increased (302 to 388 ms, p less than 0.05). The average effective refractory period was significantly increased during combination therapy (267 ms) compared with no drug therapy (235 ms) and therapy with the class IC drug alone (247 ms) (p less than 0.05). After a mean follow-up interval of 22 months, seven patients continue on the combined treatment and have no ventricular tachycardia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The role of combination therapy with mexiletine and procainamide in patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia refractory to intravenous procainamide

This study evaluated the role of serial electropharmacological testing on combination therapy with mexiletine and procainamide in 20 patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) refractory to intravenous procainamide. The clinical arrhythmias were cardiac arrest in five patients, sustained VT in 11 patients, and recurrent syncope of presumably arrhythmic origin in four patients. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 0.40 +/- 0.12 (mean +/- SD). All patients had inducible sustained VT at baseline and after administration of intravenous procainamide. All 20 patients underwent electropharmacological testing on combination therapy with mexiletine and procainamide. The mean cycle length of inducible sustained VT was 251 +/- 48 ms at baseline, 324 +/- 81 ms on intravenous procainamide (P less than 0.014 vs baseline), and 365 +/- 82 ms on combination therapy (P less than 0.0001 vs baseline, P = NS vs intravenous procainamide). Combination therapy did not suppress VT inducibility, nor did it make VT more difficult to induce in 19 of 20 patients. The remaining one patient had a partial response (runs of nonsustained VT, longest 10 seconds). Furthermore, combination therapy did not significantly prolong the VT cycle length over and above that observed during testing with intravenous procainamide. Therefore, in patients with inducible sustained VT refractory to procainamide during initial electropharmacological testing, mexiletine in combination with procainamide appears to be of little or no value and serial electropharmacological testing on these drugs is of limited usefulness. Early initiation of alternative therapy may be the preferred clinical option.

Mexiletine versus quinidine as first-line antiarrhythmia therapy: results from consecutive trials

The efficacy of mexiletine and quinidine in controlling ventricular couplets (VC) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) was compared in 156 trials (78 for each drug) in 114 consecutive patients. Forty-two patients received both drugs, whereas 36 patients were given mexiletine, and 36 patients received quinidine only. During acute drug testing, mexiletine was more effective than quinidine in controlling VC and VT (54 vs. 32 patients, respectively, P less than .001) and resulted in fewer proarrhythmic events (4 vs. 13, respectively, P less than .05). Mean duration of follow-up for mexiletine (27 +/- 14 mo) and quinidine (21 +/- 14 mo) did not differ. Long-term success was more frequent with mexiletine administration than quinidine administration (33/47 vs. 10/30 patients, respectively, P less than .01). The incidence of sudden death during follow-up with the two drugs did not differ overall, but more patients with ejection fraction greater than or equal to 40% died suddenly while taking quinidine than while receiving mexiletine (4/17 vs. 0/24, P less than .02). Mexiletine is as effective as quinidine for treating VC and VT and appears to be less proarrhythmic. It should be considered as an initial choice in the management of VC and VT.

Combination of flecainide and mexiletine for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias

A combination of oral flecainide and mexiletine was given to 11 patients in whom monotherapy with one of these drugs was ineffective for the suppression of inducible ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. In eight of 11 studies, combination therapy prevented inducibility of a sustained ventricular tachycardia or resulted in induction of only nonsustained tachycardia (P = 0.0003, when compared to monotherapy). In one patient, a slow ventricular tachycardia was induced. During exercise testing ventricular tachycardia occurred in two of these nine patients, and ventricular fibrillation in another patient. Seven patients received combination on the long term, for a mean of 18 months. One patient had recurrences of ventricular tachycardia which was well tolerated. Another patient had a recurrent episode of ventricular fibrillation, but was successfully resuscitated. Severe congestive heart failure occurred in two patients. ACE inhibitors were given to them and to another four patients. No other important unwanted effects occurred. The combination of mexiletine and flecainide is very effective in suppressing inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia. The efficacy of this combination to prevent recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias is acceptable. Exercise testing is of importance to unmask proarrhythmic effects before discharge from hospital.

Mexiletine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in the treatment of arrhythmias

As a member of the class Ib antiarrhythmic drugs mexiletine's primary mechanism of action is blocking fast sodium channels, reducing the phase 0 maximal upstroke velocity of the action potential. It increases the ratio of effective refractory period to action potential duration, but has little effect on conductivity. Unlike quinidine it does not prolong QRS and QT (QTc) intervals. In the dosage range 600 to 900 mg daily mexiletine effectively suppresses premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) in 25% to 79% of patients, with or without underlying cardiac disease. In comparative studies the response rate was comparable to that with quinidine or disopyramide. However, the use of antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with asymptomatic arrhythmias is controversial. More importantly, mexiletine abolishes spontaneous or inducible ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in the short term in 20% to 50% of patients with refractory arrhythmias. Arrhythmia suppression is maintained in 57% to over 80% of these early therapeutic successes in the long term, with mexiletine alone or in combination with another antiarrhythmic drug. As with other antiarrhythmic drugs, there is no substantial evidence that administration of mexiletine after acute myocardial infarction improves long term prognosis. Although the incidence of adverse effects associated with mexiletine is high, the majority are minor gastrointestinal or neurological effects which can be adequately controlled through dosage adjustment. Furthermore, mexiletine has minimal effects on haemodynamic variables, or on cardiac function in patients with or without pre-existing deterioration of left ventricular function, and it appears to have a low proarrhythmic potential. Thus, while the therapeutic efficacy of mexiletine for the prevention or suppression of symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias may be no greater than that of other antiarrhythmic drugs, and less than that of some (e.g. amiodarone), it is effective in a significant proportion of patients refractory to other treatments and can be administered without causing adverse haemodynamic effects to patients with complicating factors such as acute myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure.

Mexiletine: pharmacology and therapeutic use

Mexiletine is a Class IB antiarrhythmic which has basic and clinical electrophysiologic properties similar to lidocaine. Like other Class I antiarrhythmic agents, mexiletine blocks the rapid inward sodium current responsible for phase 0 of the action potential. It has been noted in the clinical electrophysiology laboratory to have minimal effect on sinus node function and AV nodal and His-Purkinje system conduction. Pharmacokinetic studies have shown that oral absorption is rapid with bioavailability of 80-90%. Mexiletine is predominantly metabolized by the liver with elimination half-life of 9 to 12 hours. The antiarrhythmic effects of the primary drug's metabolites remain to be defined. Hemodynamic studies have shown mexiletine to have a lesser negative inotropic effect than procainamide or disopyramide. Although mexiletine as a single agent successfully suppresses 60 to 80% of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias, it has lower efficacy in suppression of induced ventricular arrhythmias. Multiple studies have shown that as monotherapy mexiletine is effective in preventing the induction of ventricular tachycardia in approximately 20% of patients. When used in combination with a Class IA antiarrhythmic drug for suppression of induced ventricular arrhythmias, multiple investigators have reported greater efficacy. Neurological side effects (tremor, dizziness, memory loss) occur in approximately 10% of patients while gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, anorexia, gastric irritation) occur in up to 40% of patients. Proarrhythmia or other serious toxicity from the drug is uncommon.

Low dose quinidine-mexiletine combination therapy versus quinidine monotherapy for treatment of ventricular arrhythmias

Low dose quinidine-mexiletine combination therapy was compared with quinidine monotherapy in 15 patients with frequent ventricular premature complexes and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in a dose escalation cross-over study. Oral combination therapy was initiated with quinidine gluconate (165 mg) plus mexiletine (150 mg) every 8 h. If ventricular premature complexes were not suppressed greater than or equal to 80% and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia greater than or equal to 90%, the dose was increased to a maximum of 330 mg of quinidine plus 200 mg of mexiletine. Quinidine monotherapy was initiated with 330 mg and escalated to a maximum of 660 mg every 8 h if criteria for effectiveness were not met. Combination quinidine-mexiletine therapy suppressed 80% of ventricular premature complexes in 13 of 14 patients and suppressed 100% of episodes of ventricular tachycardia in 6 of 8 patients (mean quinidine dose 200 +/- 70 mg; mean mexiletine dose 146 +/- 24 mg every 8 h). The mean effective trough quinidine and mexiletine concentration was 1.0 +/- 0.7 and 0.9 +/- 0.4 microgram/ml, respectively. Monotherapy was less effective; that is, greater than or equal to 80% suppression of ventricular premature complexes was observed in 5 of 15 patients and 100% suppression of ventricular tachycardia in 2 of 9 patients. The mean quinidine monotherapy dose was 462 +/- 155 mg every 8 h; the mean quinidine concentration was 1.8 +/- 0.8 microgram/ml. Adverse systemic effects occurred in 3 patients on quinidine-mexiletine therapy and in 11 on quinidine monotherapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Efficacy of moricizine in malignant ventricular arrhythmias

Moricizine hydrochloride has been shown to be effective in the treatment of a variety of ventricular arrhythmias. It has been evaluated for the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in several hundred patients. When assessed by noninvasive techniques, moricizine effectively suppresses spontaneous unsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) in approximately 60% of patients. Efficacy is sustained during long-term therapy. Evaluation of moricizine therapy for sustained VT using programmed stimulation has been carefully performed in more than 100 patients. The initiation of sustained VT is suppressed in 20 to 25% of patients. Moricizine is generally well tolerated. Because of its minimal effects on left ventricular function, a common clinical problem in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias and relatively low potential for proarrhythmia, moricizine has a role in the treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in selected patients.

Acute effects of combination of IB and IC antiarrhythmics for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia

There are limited data on the effects of Class IB and IC antiarrhythmic drug combination for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia. The present study evaluated this combination in 12 patients who had sustained ventricular tachycardia (SuVT) during programmed electrical stimulation (PES) and failed IC antiarrhythmic therapy. Following combination of lidocaine and a IC agent (7 with encainide and 5 with flecainide), two had no inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) and one had nonsustained VT (NSVT). In seven of nine patients who still had SuVT, the mean VT cycle length increased 40 +/- 25 msec post combination compared to IC antiarrhythmic therapy. Seven patients who had a favorable response to the initial combination (less than 10 beats of NSVT, or greater than or equal to 10 beats of VT with a greater than 100 msec increase in cycle length compared to baseline and no hemodynamic compromise) were then placed on IC + oral IB agent (5 with mexiletine, 2 with tocainide). Similar effects on VT inducibility and cycle length were observed following the oral combination. In conclusion, the addition of lidocaine to IC therapy produced favorable effects on induced ventricular tachycardia in 58% of patients compared to IC agent alone. Also, a positive PES response to lidocaine and IC therapy corresponded to a similar positive response when either mexiletine or tocainide was substituted for lidocaine.

Tocainide and metoprolol: an efficacious therapeutic combination in the treatment of premature ventricular beats

A double-blind crossover study was performed in 20 patients to verify the efficacy of tocainide plus metoprolol in patients with premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) class Lown greater than or equal to 2 (mean frequency greater than or equal to 30/h) judged as being "stable" by at least three basal 24-h Holter ECGs with PVC variation of less than +/- 25%. All 20 patients were submitted to a placebo period; and all were subsequently randomized to therapy with tocainide 1800 mg/day or metoprolol 200 mg/day for 15 days and then to tocainide 1800 mg + metoprolol 200 mg/day or tocainide 1200 mg + metoprolol 200 mg/day for 15 days, followed by a crossover of the two combination treatments. At steady state in every stage we controlled for plasma levels of the drugs, a 24-h Holter recording, and a 12-lead ECG. A modified Lown score was evaluated together with the Lown class. Tocainide (mean plasma level 3.3 +/- 0.7 micrograms/ml) was efficacious in 3 of 8 patients, the modified Lown score decreased from 63 +/- 32 (placebo period) to 42 +/- 27 (p less than 0.01) and Lown 4B arrhythmias were abolished in 3 of 4 patients. Metoprolol (mean plasma level 97.4 +/- 89.6 ng/ml) was efficacious in 2 of 10 patients; the modified Lown score and Lown classes did not change significantly. Administration of tocainide 1200 mg + metoprolol 200 mg obtained a positive response in 9 of 12 patients, the modified Lown score decreased significantly compared with placebo (from 53 +/- 31 to 32 +/- 30, p less than 0.01) and Lown 4B arrhythmias were abolished in 2 of 5 cases. Tocainide 1800 mg plus metoprolol 200 mg was scarcely tolerated owing to neurologic and gastroenteric side effects, and only three patients completed this stage with no better antiarrhythmic results compared to the lower dose. In conclusion, the combination of tocainide at 1200 mg and metoprolol 200 mg is well tolerated, efficacious in a high percentage of patients, and superior to single drug therapy in patients with stable PVCs.

Combination of disopyramide and mexiletine for better tolerance and additive effects for treatment of ventricular arrhythmias

The efficacy and tolerance of disopyramide and mexiletine used alone and in combination were studied in 21 patients with frequent (greater than or equal to 30/h) ventricular premature complexes. Ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring was performed at baseline and during therapy with disopyramide alone, mexiletine alone and a combination of disopyramide and mexiletine. During single drug therapy, the dose of disopyramide was 602 +/- 152 mg/day and that of mexiletine was 738 +/- 144 mg/day. During combination therapy with smaller doses of disopyramide (524 +/- 134 mg/day) and mexiletine (652 +/- 146 mg/day), no patient had side effects. At baseline before therapy, the mean number of ventricular premature complexes per hour, was 608 +/- 757, of couplets per hour was 22.4 +/- 45.8 and of episodes of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia/24 h was 219.7 +/- 758.2. The mean number of ventricular premature complexes per hour was reduced to 156 +/- 217 with disopyramide alone, 188 +/- 298 with mexiletine alone and 76 +/- 144 with combination therapy (p less than 0.05 for combination therapy versus disopyramide or mexiletine alone; p = NS for disopyramide versus mexiletine). Individually, an effective regimen (greater than 83% reduction in ventricular premature complexes and abolition of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia) was found in 5 (24%) of 21 patients during therapy with disopyramide alone, in 3 (14%) receiving mexiletine alone and in 13 (62%) receiving combination therapy (p less than 0.05 for combination therapy versus disopyramide or mexiletine; p = NS for disopyramide versus mexiletine). Thus, the antiarrhythmic effects of disopyramide and mexiletine are additive.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Combination antiarrhythmic therapy for management of malignant ventricular arrhythmia

The efficacy of combination drug therapy in the suppression of ambient ventricular arrhythmia was retrospectively evaluated in a study of 49 patients discharged from the hospital taking 2 membrane-active antiarrhythmic agents. Thirty-one patients (63%) had ischemic heart disease, 15 had miscellaneous cardiac disorders and 3 were free of ostensible heart disease. Therapy in all patients had previously been unsuccessful with an average of 3.7 single membrane-active drugs. Antiarrhythmic agents were discontinued for at least 48 hours to determine baseline arrhythmia levels by Holter monitoring and maximal exercise treadmill testing. Ventricular premature beats were evaluated according to the grading system of Lown and Wolf. Data on ventricular ectopic activity were obtained during Holter monitoring and exercise testing for both a control ("drug-free") period and for a period of combination therapy. During the control period, ventricular tachycardia was recorded during 23% of monitored hours, and the level was nearly twofold greater during stress testing. After institution of combined therapy, the percent of monitored hours of arrhythmia were reduced during Holter monitoring, with a greater reduction in couplets and ventricular tachycardia than in single ventricular premature beats. Ventricular tachycardia was more difficult to provoke by exercise testing in patients taking combination therapy than in control subjects. These data indicate that combination therapy can significantly reduce the density of ventricular ectopic activity in patients refractory to monotherapy. During an average follow-up of 26 months, 23 patients (47%) were able to receive decreased drug dosages, affording diminished adverse effects and improved tolerance to long-term use.

Effect of oral combination therapy with mexiletine and quinidine on left and right ventricular function

Combination therapy with mexiletine (MEX) and quinidine (Q) may be more efficacious than monotherapy with either drug in suppressing ventricular arrhythmias, but its effects on ventricular performance are not known. Thus, right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and wall motion score (WMS) were assessed in 14 patients with ventricular tachycardia before antiarrhythmic therapy, during MEX and Q monotherapies, and during combination therapy. During monotherapy, the daily doses and serum drug levels were: MEX, 621 mg/day and 3.4 microM/L; Q, 1573 mg/day and 8.3 microM/L, respectively. With combination therapy, the daily doses and serum drug levels were: MEX, 636 mg/day and 3.3 microM/L; Q, 1643 mg/day and 9.5 microM/L, respectively. Drug therapy did not affect group LVEF (drug free = 36 +/- 19%, MEX = 34 +/- 18%, Q = 36 +/- 19%, and combination MEX-Q = 35 +/- 19%), RVEF (drug free = 34 +/- 11%, MEX = 35 +/- 11%, Q = 36 +/- 13%, and combination MEX-Q = 36 +/- 12%), or WMS. Ventricular function reserve was assessed in five patients. Drug therapy did not affect group exercise LVEF (drug free = 44 +/- 14%, MEX = 42 +/- 12%, Q = 43 +/- 13%, and MEX-Q = 45 +/- 12%), RVEF (drug free = 38 +/- 10%, MEX = 40 +/- 11%, Q = 39 +/- 12%, and MEX-Q = 40 +/- 12%), WMS, or exercise duration. Combination MEX-Q therapy did not have a significant effect on exercise performance or ventricular function in seven additional patients in whom no exercise studies were done during monotherapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

New antiarrhythmic drugs

While controversy still exists as to the precise indications for the treatment of all forms of ventricular arrhythmia, advances in the number and, more importantly, type of antiarrhythmic drugs can provide the clinician with a rational basis for selecting antiarrhythmic drug therapy. A host of new agents with different pharmacokinetic and electrophysiological actions are now available, and can be compared or contrasted to conventional antiarrhythmic agents such as quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, lignocaine (lidocaine) and bretylium. This review summarises the electrophysiological, haemodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy and safety data of mexiletine, tocainide, flecainide, encainide, propafenone, amiodarone, sotalol, pirmenol, cibenzoline (cifenline) and ethmozine (moracizine, moricizine), and aims to provide a basis on which clinicians can compare and contrast these agents and form an algorithm for selection of antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the treatment of patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Long-term efficacy of mexiletine alone and in combination with class Ia antiarrhythmic drugs for refractory ventricular arrhythmias

The efficacy of mexiletine used alone, and in combination with a class Ia antiarrhythmic drug, was assessed in 159 previously drug-refractory patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) during serial electrophysiologic studies and during long-term (5-year) clinical follow-up. Electrically-inducible ventricular tachycardia was suppressed by mexiletine alone in 23% of patients tested, and a combined antiarrhythmic drug regimen was effective in 29% of the trials performed. Mexiletine was much more likely to be effective in patients presenting with nonsustained VT or ventricular fibrillation than in patients with sustained VT (p less than 0.005). After 1 and 4 years of treatment, 18% and 42% of the patients treated with mexiletine alone had died suddenly or suffered recurrent symptomatic VT, compared to 11% and 25% of patients treated with the combined antiarrhythmic drug regimens (p = NS). Mexiletine therapy was associated with frequent, though readily reversible, adverse reactions. However, mexiletine treatment had to be discontinued permanently in 8 of 92 patients (9%) because of intolerable side effects. We conclude that the added efficacy and possible improved arrhythmia-free survival associated with combining mexiletine with a class Ia agent should be further investigated.

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.

Chronic ventricular arrhythmias: which drug for which patient?

Many agents, including a number of drugs recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, are now available for the treatment of chronic ventricular arrhythmias. The so-called first-generation agents--quinidine, procainamide and disopyramide--have been used in large numbers of patients for many years, and the safety and efficacy profiles of these drugs are well established. The "second-generation" antiarrhythmic agents recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration offer promising new alternatives; however, their safety and efficacy profiles have yet to be confirmed for broad populations over extended periods of time. Although it is recognized that the choice of agent for treatment of a particular patient is a "therapeutic trial," with an unpredictable outcome of efficacy and adverse effects, certain "descriptors," such as patient age or co-existing medical conditions, are often helpful in determining which agent is most likely to be clinically effective, and which agents are most likely to produce adverse effects. When other medical conditions such as hepatic or renal failure are present, the appropriate choice of drug and dosage is required for optimal management of the arrhythmia and for prevention of overdosage, exacerbation of other medical problems and deleterious interactions. Combination therapy with multiple antiarrhythmic agents is often quite effective for increasing arrhythmia control without increasing adverse effects. However dosage modifications are often necessary when an antiarrhythmic drug is given in conjunction with another such agent, or with agents that also have electrophysiologic activity or modify metabolic or elimination functions. The following report is one clinician's approach for optimizing efficacy and minimizing toxicity while using the difficult class of drugs called antiarrhythmic agents. It will encourage the use of certain drugs before others, based on considerations of efficacy, safety, ease of administration, follow-up, and other factors.

New antiarrhythmic drugs: tocainide, mexiletine, flecainide, encainide, and amiodarone

Tocainide, mexiletine, flecainide, encainide, and amiodarone are antiarrhythmic agents that have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for general use in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias. All five agents are effective in the treatment of patients with ventricular arrhythmias, whereas encainide, flecainide, and amiodarone are also useful in patients with supraventricular arrhythmias and the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (although not yet approved for these indications). Tocainide and mexiletine are similar to lidocaine and are as effective as quinidine in patients with ventricular arrhythmias. Encainide and flecainide are superior to quinidine for the control of ventricular ectopic beats and as effective as quinidine for patients with ventricular tachycardia. Amiodarone is the most effective agent available for treating patients with ventricular tachycardia, but it is also the most toxic antiarrhythmic agent and should be used only when other antiarrhythmic drugs have not been effective or tolerated.

Mexiletine-quinidine combination: electrophysiologic correlates of a favorable antiarrhythmic interaction in humans

Combination therapy with mexiletine and quinidine has been shown to be more effective than either agent alone. The ability of mexiletine monotherapy, quinidine monotherapy and mexiletine-quinidine combination therapy to suppress inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia was related to drug-induced changes in ventricular refractoriness, conduction times and monophasic action potential duration recorded from both ventricles. Ventricular tachycardia could no longer be induced in 7 (35%) of the 20 patients studied with combination therapy. This was a significantly higher proportion of patients than that of the groups responding to either monotherapy (quinidine, 10%; mexiletine, 5%). Ventricular effective and functional refractory periods were measured when applying single (S2), double (S3) and triple (S4) extrastimuli. Quinidine monotherapy increased functional and effective refractory periods of both single and multiple extrastimuli. However, when comparing measurements made during mexiletine treatment with those at baseline, mexiletine monotherapy increased only the refractory periods of S4. The effective refractory period of S4 during mexiletine monotherapy (200 +/- 20 ms) was significantly longer than at baseline (160 +/- 21 ms). Similarly, when comparing measurements made during combination therapy with those during quinidine monotherapy, combination therapy significantly increased the refractory periods only of multiple extrastimuli. The effective refractory period of S4 during combination therapy (253 +/- 26 ms) was significantly longer than that of quinidine monotherapy (223 +/- 27 ms).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Enhanced antiarrhythmic efficacy of propafenone when used in combination with procainamide or quinidine

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining propafenone with procainamide or quinidine for treating ventricular arrhythmias in patients in whom procainamide or quinidine therapy alone failed to suppress arrhythmias. In 30 patients, the addition of propafenone resulted in a significant reduction of premature ventricular contraction (PVC) frequency compared to drug-free baseline (406 PVC/hr vs 33, p less than 0.001) and to procainamide or quinidine monotherapy (211 PVC/hr vs 27, p less than 0.01). Propafenone alone was also more effective than either procainamide or quinidine and resulted in significant suppression of PVC compared to the drug-free state (406 PVC/hr vs 38, p less than 0.001). However, higher propafenone doses were necessary during monotherapy as compared to propafenone therapy combined with procainamide or quinidine (730 mg/day vs 480 mg/day, p less than 0.001). Of the 30 patients, 22 required an increase in propafenone dose during monotherapy as compared to combination therapy. Thus, propafenone is an effective antiarrhythmic agent when used in combination with type IA antiarrhythmic drugs. With these combinations, lower doses of propafenone can be utilized effectively than with propafenone alone.

Combination of tocainide and quinidine for better tolerance and additive effects in patients with coronary artery disease

The efficacy and tolerance of tocainide used alone and in combination with quinidine were studied in 20 patients with coronary artery disease and frequent (greater than 30/h) ventricular premature complexes. Holter electrocardiographic monitoring was performed at baseline and during therapy with tocainide alone, quinidine alone and a combination of tocainide and quinidine. During single drug therapy, the dose of tocainide was 1,680 +/- 437 mg/day and that of quinidine was 1,340 +/- 235 mg/day. During combination therapy, with smaller doses of tocainide (1,350 +/- 394 mg/day) and quinidine (1,060 +/- 268 mg/day) in many patients, no patient had side effects. At baseline before therapy, the mean ventricular premature complexes/h were 629 +/- 567, couplets/h were 23.9 +/- 29.7 and nonsustained ventricular tachycardias/24 h were 60.5 +/- 152.2. Compared with baseline values (100%), the frequency of ventricular premature complexes was reduced to 33 +/- 44% with quinidine, 39 +/- 30% with tocainide and 10 +/- 16% with combination therapy (p less than 0.01 for combination versus quinidine or tocainide alone; p = NS for quinidine versus tocainide). Individually, an effective regimen (greater than 83% reduction of ventricular premature complexes and abolition of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia) was found in 3 (15%) of 20 patients receiving tocainide alone, in 6 (30%) receiving quinidine alone and in 16 (80%) receiving combination therapy (p less than 0.01 for tocainide versus combination, quinidine versus combination; p = NS for tocainide versus quinidine). Thus, the antiarrhythmic effects of quinidine and tocainide are additive.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Electrophysiologic effects and clinical efficacy of mexiletine used alone or in combination with class IA agents for refractory recurrent ventricular tachycardias or ventricular fibrillation

The electrophysiologic effects and clinical efficacy of mexiletine used alone or in combination with class IA agents were studied in 35 patients with recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation refractory to nonexperimental antiarrhythmic agents. At baseline before therapy, all patients had inducible VT by programmed stimulation (1 to 3 extrastimuli) and frequent (at least 30/hour) ventricular premature complexes (VPCs) during Holter monitoring. Mexiletine therapy was effective by programmed stimulation (VT no longer inducible or 15 or less beats) in 8 and ineffective in 27 patients. Twenty patients were discharged with mexiletine (14 of whom took an additional class IA agent). The discharge regimen was effective by programmed stimulation in 6 of these 20 patients. In 14 patients the discharge regimen was ineffective by programmed stimulation, but all patients had a marked reduction of ventricular ectopic activity (at least 83% reduction of VPCs and abolition of non sustained VT). During the follow-up period of 18 +/- 13 months (mean +/- standard deviation), 4 patients had recurrences (3 with an ineffective regimen by programmed stimulation and 1 with an effective regimen by programmed stimulation). Arrhythmia-free survival rates at 12 and 24 months were 86% and 77%, as determined by the Kaplan-Meier method, in patients with an ineffective regimen by programmed stimulation, and 80% and 80% in patients with an effective regimen by programmed stimulation (p = 0.979 by log rank test).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Combination antiarrhythmic drug therapy for ventricular tachyarrhythmias

New antiarrhythmic drug regimens are constantly being sought because of the relatively low efficacy rates of standard antiarrhythmic agents in preventing induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias; the application of these agents is also limited due to serious or debilitating side-effects. The combination of two antiarrhythmic agents with complimentary electrophysiologic activities and differing toxicities might offer significant advantages in overcoming the drawbacks of standard antiarrhythmic drug therapy. A knowledge of the pharmacodynamics of the major classes of antiarrhythmic agents will allow informed choices of drugs for use in combination therapy. Judging antiarrhythmic drug efficacy is a complex problem, requiring an understanding of the influence of the arrhythmia monitoring technique, arrhythmia morphology and the response to previous drugs on drug efficacy rates, so that accurate comparisons of drug effectiveness can be made among different agents or combinations. A number of combination therapies have been tested for suppression of complex ventricular ectopy, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and sustained ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. The most successful combinations have been those using class IA and IB agents and class IA and II agents. In general, these combinations tend to show higher efficacy rates in suppressing all forms of ventricular ectopy and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and usually have a lower incidence of toxic side-effects compared with individual agents alone. On the basis of these initial results, it seems warranted to perform further studies to explore these combinations in larger populations and to test new combinations developed on the basis of pharmacodynamic principles.