Antiarrhythmic drug therapy 1988: for whom, how and where?

Reassessment of benefit-risk ratio and treatment algorithms for antiarrhythmic drug therapy after the cardiac arrhythmia suppression trial

The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) has led to serious reconsideration of both the benefit-risk ratio of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and the appropriate therapeutic approach to various cardiac arrhythmias. Class IC drugs, such as encainide and flecainide, should not be used to treat asymptomatic postinfarction arrhythmias. Furthermore, because the CAST raises serious questions about the concept of treating asymptomatic but "potentially malignant" (prognostically important) arrhythmias guided by ambulatory monitoring, the prophylactic use of any of the antiarrhythmic agents (except beta blockers) must be considered inappropriate and potentially harmful until otherwise established by specific clinical trials. For prophylaxis of malignant ventricular arrhythmias (sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation), treatment may still begin with standard agents in classes IA, IB, or both, preferably guided by electrophysiologic testing alone or in combination with noninvasive testing. Class IC therapy may be most useful in those patients in this group who do not have such high-risk characteristics for proarrhythmia as a history of multiple myocardial infarctions (MIs), congestive heart failure, or low ejection fraction. Amiodarone is moderately effective for treating these arrhythmias but is reserved as second- or third-line therapy because of its potential organ toxicity. Sotalol, a beta blocker with class III activity, is often effective and relatively well tolerated in these patients and may become a preferred drug when approved. For symptomatic but nonmalignant ventricular arrhythmias, a more conservative approach is more appropriate than in the past, with therapy reversed for those with debilitating symptoms. An initial trial of beta blockade is often appropriate before class I agents are considered.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Placement of moricizine in the selection of antiarrhythmic drug therapy

The selection of antiarrhythmic drug therapy requires a careful assessment of the benefits of ventricular arrhythmia suppression compared with the risks of antiarrhythmic drug use. Since reduction in sudden cardiac death from ventricular arrhythmia suppression has not been demonstrated, the only indications for antiarrhythmic drug suppression involve the reduction of hemodynamic symptoms such as syncope (a major benefit) or the reduction of nonhemodynamic symptoms such as palpitations or dizziness (a minor benefit). Noncardiac adverse effects and organ toxicity as well as cardiac side effects must be considered when antiarrhythmic drug therapy is initiated. For reduction of nonhemodynamically important symptoms in patients with benign or potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias, beta blockers are chosen as first-line therapy. Because of moricizine's relatively high effectiveness in suppressing ventricular arrhythmias and its low potential for noncardiac adverse effects and organ toxicity as well as a low incidence of induced proarrhythmia and heart failure, moricizine is selected as the next drug in line. All other class I antiarrhythmic drugs either have been shown to have the potential for increasing sudden cardiac death or have major rates of noncardiac adverse effects or organ toxicity that preclude their use in these patient groups except in special circumstances. In patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias who present with hemodynamic consequences such as syncope or worse, moricizine also is preferred as an initial drug for consideration. When compared to drugs with class IA and IB action, moricizine has comparable efficacy yet lower rates of noncardiac adverse effects, organ toxicity, proarrhythmia and heart failure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical implications of new studies in the treatment of benign, potentially malignant and malignant ventricular arrhythmias

For purposes of clinical management, ventricular arrhythmias have been divided into risk categories of benign, prognostically important (potentially malignant) and malignant. Benign arrhythmias occur in the setting of structurally normal hearts and do not require therapy unless associated with debilitating symptoms. Malignant arrhythmias such as sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation deserve aggressive therapy to prevent recurrence. Arrhythmias occurring in the presence of organic heart disease (often ischemic disease) are frequently asymptomatic but prognostically important as a risk factor for sudden death or cardiac arrest. The common empiric practice to treat such arrhythmias (by about 40 to 50% of cardiologists in the United States) needs to be reassessed in the face of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. For malignant arrhythmias, class IA agents (procainamide and quinidine) continue to be the standard of treatment, and class IB agents (e.g., mexiletine) may be used as alternative or additive therapy. Class IC agents are used as second-line therapy, especially in the setting of ischemic heart disease. Class III therapy with amiodarone is reserved for refractory patients because of potential toxicity. Sotalol, a new class II-III agent, may become a first-line drug. For prognostically important arrhythmias, beta blockers remain the agents of choice, class IC agents are contraindicated, and class IA or IB drugs, or both, should be used conservatively (i.e., only for symptomatic arrhythmias). For symptomatic but benign arrhythmias requiring treatment, beta blockers are safe although not always effective. Class IA, IB and IC agents may then be considered. In these patients, the proarrhythmic potential of quinidine and class IC agents remains a concern.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effectiveness of sotalol for therapy of complex ventricular arrhythmias and comparisons with placebo and class I antiarrhythmic drugs

In new antiarrhythmic drug development, key comparisons include those with placebo, standard (class I) agents and other beta blockers. This review will cover the first 2 comparisons. The effectiveness of 2 doses of sotalol for complex ventricular arrhythmias has been compared with placebo in a 6-week, multicenter study (parallel, double-blind design) in 102 patients. The frequency of ventricular premature complexes (VPCs) was reduced only 10% with placebo, 75% with low-dose sotalol (160 mg administered twice daily) and 88% with high-dose sotalol (320 mg administered twice daily) (both p less than 0.05 vs placebo). The defined efficacy criterion (greater than or equal to 75% VPC suppression) was achieved by 6% of patients taking placebo, 34% of patients taking low- and 71% of patients taking high-dose sotalol. Sotalol was generally well tolerated, especially with the lower dose. Heart rate decreased, and PR and QTc intervals increased modestly. An open, randomized, crossover study compared sotalol with procainamide in 33 patients. A reduction in VPCs of greater than or equal to 75% was achieved in 22 patients (67%) with sotalol and in 13 patients (39%) with procainamide. Quinidine and sotalol have also been compared in a multicenter study in patients with chronic, complex VPCs, with results to be presented in the near future. Thus, sotalol's antiarrhythmic efficacy is well demonstrated by comparisons with placebo, and its effectiveness and tolerance are likely to compare favorably with standard class I drugs, suggesting its potential as a first-line antiarrhythmic agent.

Prevention of symptomatic recurrences of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients initially tolerating antiarrhythmic therapy. A multicenter, double-blind, crossover study of flecainide and placebo with transtelephonic monitoring. Flecainide Supraventricular Tachycardia Study Group

Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is a problematic clinical arrhythmia that is usually symptomatic. Unfortunately, few adequate trials and trial methods are available for assessment of the value of therapy, and traditional treatment has often been ineffective or associated with unacceptable side effects. Transtelephonic monitoring is a new method that allows evaluation of paroxysmal arrhythmias and arrhythmia-related symptoms in outpatients. We used a patient-initiated transtelephonic monitor system to evaluate the potential of flecainide, a class 1C antiarrhythmic, in prevention of symptomatic recurrences of PAF. Sixty-four patients qualified for the study (two or more PAF attacks documented within a 4-week baseline period) and entered a dose-finding phase to determine drug tolerance. Dose was incremented at weekly intervals from 200-300 and finally to 400 mg/day. The largest dose that was well tolerated was selected for the 4-month, double-blind, randomized, crossover comparison with placebo. Fifty-five patients entered and 53 received both treatments in the double-blind phase; 48 of these patients without protocol violations were evaluable for efficacy comparisons. Evaluable patients had undergone an average of 3.8 previous drug trials (range, 1-8); 30 were men, 18 had hypertension, and 14 had ischemic heart disease. The study demonstrated a highly significant correlation (p less than 0.0001) between perceived symptoms and documented PAF by transtelephonic monitoring. The rate of symptoms and PAF attacks was also significantly reduced by therapy (median dose, 300 mg/day). The first PAF attack occurred after a median of 3 days on placebo versus 14.5 days on flecainide (p less than 0.001) therapy. Similarly, the time interval between attacks was lengthened, from a median of 6.2 days on placebo to 27.0 days on flecainide (p less than 0.001) therapy. PAF was prevented in 15 patients (31%) during flecainide and four (9%) during placebo therapy (p = 0.013). However, during the study, 13 patients dropped out, seven because of adverse effects (five cardiac), five for other reasons, and one because of cardiac arrest/death. Adverse cardiac events occurred in a total of seven patients (11%) during flecainide therapy. Thus, transtelephonic monitoring is a useful method for documentation of the occurrence of paroxysmal arrhythmias such as PAF and its related symptoms during daily living and for assessment of new therapies in an outpatient setting.

Encainide

Encainide is a class IC antiarrhythmic agent having little or no effect on action-potential duration or maximum diastolic potential but decreasing the maximum rate of phase O depolarization as well as increasing atrial and ventricular effective refractory periods. In intact animals or humans, encainide increases the AH, PR, QRS, and H-V intervals while not affecting the sinus node cycle length or JT interval. QT interval increases only by the concomitant increase in the QRS interval. Encainide is metabolized to O-demethyl encainide (ODE) and 3-methoxy-ODE (MODE), both of which are also antiarrhythmics with similar pharmacology to encainide. Encainide and its metabolites have little negative inotropic activity and ancillary pharmacology. Consequently, encainide has little or no effect on hemodynamic variables in patients with either normal or compromised cardiac function. The drug is well tolerated, with side effects being mainly those associated with its local anesthetic activity such as blurred vision and dizziness. Encainide is particularly effective in patients with excessive premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) and less so in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Like all antiarrhythmics, encainide may aggravate or precipitate new arrhythmias (proarrhythmia). The overall incidence of proarrhythmia is about 10%, with less occurring in patients with PVCs and more in those with sustained VT; also, the incidence of proarrhythmia is higher in patients with underlying heart disease. Encainide is also effective for the treatment of supra-ventricular arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation, PSVT (both PAF as well as reentry of the nodal or W-P-W type), and ectopic atrial tachycardia. Its dosage and role in antiarrhythmic therapy are discussed.