Redefining the role of digoxin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation

Novel perspectives on arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology, clinical manifestations and an update on invasive management strategies

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy is a partially or completely reversible form of myocardial dysfunction due to sustained supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. Asynchrony, rapid cardiac rates and rhythm irregularities are the main factors involved in the development of the disease. The reversible nature of arrhythmia-induced cardiac dysfunction allows only for a retrospective diagnosis of the disease once cardiac function is restored following heart rate control. A high level of suspicion is needed to make a diagnosis at an early stage and prevent further progression of the disease. Although reversible, arrhythmia-induced cellular and molecular changes may remain, increasing the risk for sudden death even when normal ejection fraction is restored as well as causing rapid deterioration of cardiac function and development of heart failure symptoms if arrhythmia recurs. Appropriate management based on a combination of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies to achieve rate control and prevent arrhythmia recurrence is pivotal to avoid further cardiac function deterioration and to control symptoms, significantly reducing the risk of heart failure and sudden cardiac death.

Ablation of atrial tachycardia and atrial flutter in heart failure

Atrial tachycardia and atrial flutter are common tachyarrhythmias in the heart failure population. They commonly lead to, exacerbate, and increase the morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure and, thereby, warrant urgent and early definitive therapy in the form of catheter ablation. Catheter ablation requires careful patient stabilization and extensive preprocedural planning, particularly with regards to anesthesia, strategy, catheter choice, mapping system, and fluid balance, to increase efficacy and limit adverse effects. Heart failure may limit the success of catheter ablation with higher reported recurrence rates, and in selected patients, a hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation can be considered.

Cardiac remodeling with rhythm versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: insights from the AF-CHF echocardiographic sub-study

BACKGROUND

In patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, the AF-CHF (Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure) trial did not demonstrate the superiority of rhythm control (RhyC) over a rate control (RaC) strategy on cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, deleterious hemodynamic effects of atrial fibrillation can lead to further decrease in left ventricular (LV) function and progression of symptoms. This echocardiographic sub-study was designed to compare the effects of the two treatment strategies on LV ejection fraction (LVEF), chamber volumes and dimensions, valvular regurgitation and functional status.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 59 patients (29 RhyC, 30 RaC) aged 67±8 years (14% women), enrolled in the AF-CHF trial at the Montreal Heart Institute underwent standardized echocardiograms at baseline and at 12 months. Mean LVEF at baseline was severely depressed (RhyC: 27.0±4.9% and RaC: 27.6±7.4%, p=0.73), and improved to a similar degree in both groups (RhyC: +8.0±10.4% and RaC: +4.5±10.6, both p<0.05; p=0.19 for RhyC versus RaC). Other echocardiographic parameters, such as LV end-systolic volume index and degree of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation, remained unchanged. New York Heart Association functional class and distance walked in 6 min improved significantly in both groups (RhyC: +48.9±78.7 m and RaC: +47.2±96.7 m, both p≤0.01), with no difference between RhyC and RaC strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in LVEF and functional status are observed after 12 months in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, regardless of whether rate or rhythm control strategies are used.

Pharmacological treatment of atrial fibrillation: a review on prevention of recurrences and control of ventricular response

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia, however its treatment remains controversial and problematic. Electrical or pharmacological cardioversion are able to restore sinus rhythm in many patients but maintenance of sinus rhythm requires long term treatment with antiarrrhythmic agents. Today there is major concern regarding the ventricular proarrhythmic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs because they may increase mortality. Even non-cardiac toxicity of these agents must be considered. An alternative strategy based on pharmacological control of ventricular response rate coupled with antithromboembolic prophylaxis can be followed. For rate control digoxin alone has some specific limitations, therefore, use of calcium antagonists (verapamil or diltiazem) or beta-blockers must be considered. At the present time, the relative efficacy and risks of these two alternative strategies in specific patients subgroups remain to be established. Today, non-pharmacological treatments, as atrio-ventricular node ablation are also available. In elderly patients, moreover, advanced age, underlying heart disease, concomitant systemic illnesses and patient compliance to treatments condition our decision making and treatment needs to be individualized. Appropriate knowledge of the advantages, of the limitations and of the costs of every pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment option is required for deciding in every patient in view of the best risk-benefit and cost-benefit ratio.

Pharmacologic approaches to rhythm versus rate control in atrial fibrillation—where are we now?

Until recently, contemporary drug treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) focused primarily on restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, predicated on the belief that if AF is abolished then problems associated with AF would be abolished too. Recently completed clinical trials using drug therapy and comparing maintenance of sinus rhythm with control of ventricular rate have challenged this assumption, showing that simple control of ventricular rate with anticoagulation is an acceptable primary therapy, notably in older patients with persistent AF, minimally symptomatic or asymptomatic, and at increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, rate control and anticoagulation is not a panacea; existing trial results should not be interpreted to mean all patients should be treated with the rate control approach. Despite the limited efficacy and poor safety of current antiarrhythmic drugs, strategies for maintenance of sinus rhythm remain justified in many patients, such as those with first-episode AF, highly symptomatic patients, younger patients, and those with a history of congestive heart failure (CHF). Commonly used current and some investigational agents designated for "rhythm control" have enough pharmacologic overlap with rate control agents to be considered to have a dual mode of action, simultaneously addressing both rhythm and rate control. Furthermore, there is much interest in non-pharmacologic therapies, such as radiofrequency ablation, for rhythm control. The lack of appropriately designed and controlled trials at this time makes it difficult to determine the place of radiofrequency ablation and its impact on the rhythm versus rate question.

Rate control in atrial fibrillation: choice of treatment and assessment of efficacy

The clinical relevance and high social costs of atrial fibrillation have boosted interest in rate control as a cost-effective alternative to long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm (i.e. rhythm control). Prospective studies show that rate control (coupled with thromboembolic prophylaxis) is a valuable treatment option for all forms of atrial fibrillation. The rationale for rate control is that high ventricular rates, frequently found in atrial fibrillation, lead to haemodynamic impairment, consisting of a variable combination of loss of atrial kick, irregularity in ventricular response and inappropriately rapid ventricular rate, depending on the type of underlying heart disease. Long-term persistence of tachycardia at a high ventricular rate can lead to various degrees of ventricular dysfunction and even to tachycardiomyopathy-related heart failure. Identification of this reversible and often concealed form of left ventricular dysfunction can permit effective management by rate (or rhythm) control. Although acute rate control (to reduce ventricular rate within hours) is still often based on digoxin administration, for patients without left ventricular dysfunction, calcium channel antagonists or beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers) are generally more appropriate and effective. In chronic atrial fibrillation, long-term rate control (to reduce morbidity/mortality and improve quality of life) must be adapted to patients' individual characteristics to grant control during daily activities, including exercise. According to current guidelines, the clinical target of rate control should be a ventricular rate below 80-90 bpm at rest. However, in many patients, assessment of the appropriateness of different drugs should include exercise testing and 24h-Holter monitoring, for which specific guidelines are needed. In practice, rate control is considered a valid alternative to rhythm control. Recent prospective trials (e.g. the Pharmacological Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation [PIAF] and the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management [AFFIRM] trials) have shown that in selected patients, rate control provides similar benefits, more economically, in terms of quality of life and long-term mortality. The choice of a rate control medication (digoxin, beta-blockers, calcium channel antagonists or possibly amiodarone) or a non-pharmacological approach (mainly atrioventricular node ablation coupled with pacing) must currently be based on clinical assessment, which includes assessing the presence of underlying heart disease and haemodynamic impairment. Definite guidelines are required for each different subset of patients. Rate control is particularly tricky in patients with heart failure, for whom non-pharmacological options can also be considered. The preferred pharmacological options are beta-blockers for stabilised heart failure and digoxin for unstabilised forms.

Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy

Systolic dysfunction associated with chronic tachyarrhythmias, known as tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, is a reversible form of heart failure characterized by left ventricular dilatation that is usually reversible once the tachyarrhythmia is controlled. Its development is related to both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. The diagnosis is usually made following observation of a marked improvement in systolic function after normalization of heart rate. Clinicians should be aware that patients with unexplained systolic dysfunction may have tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, and that controlling the arrhythmia may result in improvement and even complete normalization of systolic function.

Acute ventricular rate control in atrial fibrillation: IV combination of diltiazem and digoxin vs. IV diltiazem alone

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the efficacy of an IV combination of diltiazem and digoxin vs IV diltiazem alone for acute ventricular rate control in patients with atrial fibrillation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, open-label study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-two patients with atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled ventricular rates were randomized to receive either an IV combination of diltiazem and digoxin or IV diltiazem alone and were observed for 12 h. The successful rate control was defined as a ventricular rate < 100 beats per minute (bpm) persisting for 1 h or conversion to sinus rhythm. The loss of rate control was defined as an increase in the ventricular rate to > 100 bpm persistently for > 30 min or rebound to atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

In both treatment arms (n = 26 each), all patients achieved successful and comparable ventricular rate control at 12 h. The mean (+/- SD) time taken to achieve successful rate control was shorter in the combination arm (15 +/- 16 vs. 22 +/- 22 min). Six patients in the combination arm and 11 in the diltiazem-alone arm experienced episodes of loss of rate control. This loss in the combination arm was less than that in the diltiazem-alone arm (14 vs 39 episodes; p = 0.05). The loss of rate control per patient in the combination arm was also less than that in the diltiazem-alone arm (2.0 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.5 +/- 1.9 episodes per patient; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that in patients with atrial fibrillation who have a rapid ventricular response, the IV combination of diltiazem and digoxin results in a more efficacious ventricular rate control with fewer fluctuations than that achieved by therapy with IV diltiazem alone.

Tachycardia-related cardiomyopathy: a common cause of ventricular dysfunction in patients with atrial fibrillation referred for atrioventricular ablation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of tachycardia-related cardiomyopathy in patients with atrial fibrillation and systolic dysfunction referred for atrioventricular node ablation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted at 16 tertiary care centers. The ejection fraction was measured before and 3 and 12 months after atrioventricular node ablation. Patients with reduced systolic function (ejection fraction < or = 45%) before atrioventricular ablation were included in this study. Patients whose ejection fraction increased by at least 15 percentage points and to higher than 45% were considered to have tachycardia-related cardiomyopathy.

RESULTS

Of 63 patients with systolic dysfunction, 48 had at least 1 adequate follow-up echocardiographic study. Sixteen (25%) of the 63 had marked improvement in the ejection fraction (mean +/- SD change, 27 +/- 8 percentage points) to a value higher than 45% after ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

Tachycardia-related cardiomyopathy is common in patients with atrial fibrillation and systolic dysfunction referred for atrioventricular node ablation. This diagnosis should be considered in all patients in whom systolic dysfunction occurs subsequent to or concomitant with onset of atrial fibrillation.

Effects of a selective A1-adenosine receptor agonist on heart rate and heart rate variability during permanent atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Mean heart rate and irregularity of the rate, i.e., heart rate variability (HRV), are two aspects of heart rate during atrial fibrillation (AF). An important goal of AF therapy is to control mean heart rate during exercise; the determinants of HRV during AF remain poorly known although its prognostic value has been established.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of a stable, long-acting, selective A1-adenosine receptor agonist, SDZ WAG994, on heart rate during exercise and on HRV.

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, patients with permanent AF performed a symptom-limited exercise test and underwent 24-hour ECG monitoring on day 1 during treatment with placebo, and on day 2 during treatment with either placebo or 2 mg SDZWAG994 orally. Changes in mean heart rate during exercise and changes in HRV indices between day 1 and day 2 were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients (64 +/- 8 years; 81% male; 25% in NYHA Class II; 38% with no structural heart disease) were included in the study. During active treatments, heart rate remained unchanged at rest and increased significantly during exercise. A significant daytime increase in short-term HRV indices (DpNN50 = 4.5% P = 0.01; DrMSSD = 6% P = 0.03; DSDNN Index = 6% P = 0.02) occurred during active treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective A1-adenosine receptor agonism with SDZ/WAG994 limits the increase in mean heart rate during exercise in patients with AF. In addition, this agonist selectively increases short-term HRV indices, suggesting that pNN50, rMSSD, and SDNN reflect vagal influences during AF.

A case series of hospitalized patients with elevated digoxin levels

PURPOSE

Although there is renewed enthusiasm for the use of digoxin in patients with heart failure, current dosing guidelines are based on a nomogram published in 1974. We studied the incidence of and risk factors for elevated digoxin levels in patients admitted to a community hospital, and compared their dosage regimens to published guidelines.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the charts of all patients who had serum digoxin levels greater than 2.4 ng/mL during a 6-month period. We collected demographic and clinical data, indications for digoxin use, digoxin dosage, concurrent medications, laboratory data, and clinical and electrocardiographic features of digoxin toxicity.

RESULTS

Of the 1,433 patients with digoxin assays, 115 (8%) patients had elevated levels. Of the 82 patients with complete records and correctly timed digoxin levels, 59 (72%) had electrocardiographic or clinical features of digoxin toxicity. Patients with serum digoxin levels >2.4 ng/mL were slightly older (78 +/- 8 versus 73 +/- 9 years of age; P = 0.12) and had greater serum creatinine levels (3.1 +/- 7.3 versus 1.4 +/- 0.3 mg/dL; P = 0.01) than those with levels < or =2.4 ng/mL. Forty-seven patients had elevated digoxin levels on admission, including 21 patients admitted for digoxin toxicity. Impaired or worsening renal function contributed to high levels in 37 patients, and a drug interaction was a contributory factor in 10 cases. Twenty (43%) of these patients were taking the recommended maintenance dose based on the scheme employed in the Digitalis Investigation Group study. Thirty-five patients developed high digoxin levels while in hospital. In 26 patients, this followed a loading dose of digoxin for the control of rapid atrial fibrillation. Impaired renal function was implicated in all of these patients. Despite the elevated digoxin level, rate control was achieved in only 11 patients of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated digoxin levels and clinical toxicity remains a common adverse drug reaction. Elderly patients, particularly those with impaired renal function and low body weights, are at the greatest risk. As published digoxin nomograms often result in toxicity, clinical variables need to be monitored. In patients with congestive heart failure and normal sinus rhythm the potential benefit of digoxin is small; thus, patients should receive a dose that minimizes the risk of toxicity. For patients with new onset atrial fibrillation, other agents may be preferable for rate control.

A tissue plasminogen activator/P-selectin fusion protein is an effective thrombolytic agent

BACKGROUND

P-selectin is expressed on the surface of activated endothelial cells and platelets. We hypothesized that a tissue plasminogen activator (TPA)/P-selectin fusion protein would have not only thrombolytic activity but also might target TPA to the thrombi. In addition, it seemed possible that this chimeric protein would competitively inhibit the binding of native P-selectin on endothelial cells and platelets to leukocytes and thus further promote thrombolysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The full-length, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1-resistant form of TPA (TPAIR) together with two TPAIR/P-selectin fusion constructs (P280IR and P121IR) were expressed with the use of baculovirus vectors. After infection of Sf21 cells with the recombinant baculovirus, recombinant TPAIR and P-selectin/TPAIR fusion proteins were purified with the use of metal ion chromatography. The intact protease activity of TPAIR and the ligand binding capability of P-selectin were confirmed through indirect chromogenic and cell binding assays, respectively. These molecules were assessed both in vitro and in vivo for thrombolytic activity. In vitro clot lysis assays indicated equal efficacy of TPAIR, P280IR, and P121IR (P > .5). The in vivo efficacy was tested in a cyclic flow variation model with the use of the rat mesenteric artery. Compared with saline control treatment, reduction in cyclic flow variations was significant (P < .05) and similar (P > .5) among TPAIR, P280IR, and P121IR. No significant bleeding was noted among treated animals.

CONCLUSIONS

Chimeric proteins P280IR and P121IR have clot lysis activities that are similar to TPAIR both in vitro and in vivo. These chimeric proteins also bind to P-selectin ligand in vitro. Thus, these proteins may provide an efficient method of targeting TPA to the thrombotic region. Further experimental analysis with the use of larger animal coronary occlusion models should help determine the future value of these proteins as clinical therapeutic agents.

Effectiveness of verapamil-quinidine versus digoxin-quinidine in the emergency department treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative effectiveness of a verapamil-quinidine sequential combination versus digoxin-quinidine in the emergency department treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF).

METHOD

This prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involved patients, aged 18 to 75 years, with new-onset (< 48 hours) atrial fibrillation who presented to a community-based urban hospital with an annual ED census of 65,000. Exclusion criteria included ventricular response rate lower than 100 or higher than 200 beats/minute, allergy to study drugs, hypotension with evidence of end-organ hypoperfusion, and conduction abnormalities. Consenting patients were randomly assigned to receive rapid digitalization (1.0 mg over 2 hours) or i.v. verapamil (sequential 5-mg boluses up to 20 mg). After ventricular rate was controlled (< 100 beats/minute), oral quinidine (200 mg) was initiated and repeated every 2 hours until conversion to normal sinus rhythm (NSR) occurred, until 1 g of quinidine was administered, or until adverse effects supervened. Heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac rhythm, time to conversion, and adverse effects were documented.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients received the study drugs. Three were withdrawn, leaving 19 in the verapamil-quinidine (VER-Q) group and 22 in the digoxin-quinidine (DIG-Q) group. Sixteen patients (84%) in the VER-Q group and 10 (45%) in the DIG-Q group converted to NSR within 6 hours (P < .02). Mean time to conversion (+/-SD) was 185 +/- 146 minutes for VER-Q and 368 +/- 386 minutes for DIG-Q patients (P = NS). Twelve VER-Q patients (63%) and 6 DIG-Q patients (27%) were discharged from the ED (P < .05). Minor adverse effects were more common in the VER-Q group. No mortality or significant morbidity occurred.

CONCLUSION

The sequential combination of verapamil and quinidine, in the doses studied, is an effective treatment for PAF and is superior to digoxin-quinidine. Digoxin should no longer be considered the treatment of choice for uncomplicated PAF.

Control of heart rate during transition from intravenous to oral diltiazem in atrial fibrillation or flutter

We tested whether patients presenting with atrial fibrillation (AF) or flutter (AFl) with a rapid ventricular response could maintain control of heart rate while transferring from a bolus and continuous infusion of intravenous diltiazem to oral diltiazem. Forty patients with AF or AFI and sustained ventricular rate > or = 120 beats/min received intravenous diltiazem "bolus" (20 to 25 mg for 2 minutes) and "infusion" (5 to 15 mg/hour for 6 to 20 hours). Oral long-acting diltiazem (diltiazem CD 180, 300, or 360 mg/24 hours) was administered in patients in whom stable heart rate control was attained during constant infusion. Intravenous diltiazem infusion was discontinued 4 hours after the first oral dose, and patients were monitored during 48 subsequent hours of "transition" to oral therapy. Response to diltiazem was defined as heart rate <100 beats/min, > or = 20% decrease in heart rate from baseline, or conversion to sinus rhythm. Other rate control or antiarrhythmic medications were not allowed during the study period. Thirty-seven of 40 patients maintained heart rate control during the bolus, and 35 of the remaining 37 maintained control during the infusion of intravenous diltiazem. Of the 35 patients achieving heart rate control with intravenous diltiazem who entered the transition to oral therapy, 27 maintained heart rate control (response rate of 77%/, 95% confidence interval 63% to 91%). The median infusion rate of intravenous diltiazem was 10 mg/hour, and the median dose of oral diltiazem CD was 300 mg/day. Oral long-acting diltiazem was 77% effective in controlling ventricular response over 48 hours in patients with AF or AFl in whom ventricular response was initially controlled with intravenous diltiazem.

Refractory Heart Failure: A Therapeutic Approach

Optimal “triple therapy” for patients with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) includes diuretics, digoxin, and either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or hydralazine plus nitrates. Refractory CHF is defined as symptoms of CHF at rest or repeated exacerbations of CHF despite “optimal” triple-drug therapy. Most patients with refractory CHF require hemodynamic monitoring and treatment in the intensive care unit. If easily reversible causes of refractory CHF cannot be identified, then more aggressive medical and surgical interventions are necessary. The primary goal of intervention is to improve hemodynamics to palliate CHF symptoms and signs (i.e., dyspnea, fatigue, edema). Secondary goals include improved vital organ and tissue perfusion, discharge from the intensive care unit, and, in appropriate patients, bridge to cardiac transplantation. Medical interventions include inotropic resuscitation (e.g., adrenergic agents, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, allied nonglycoside inodilators), load resuscitation (e.g., afterload and preload reduction with nitroprusside or nitroglycerin; preload reduction with diuretics and diuretic facilitators, such as dopaminergic agents or ultrafiltration), and electrical resuscitation (e.g., prevention of sudden death, correction of new or rapid atrial fibrillation, or dual chamber pacing in the setting of relative prolongation of the PR interval and diastolic mitral/tricuspid regurgitation). Surgical interventions are temporizing (e.g., intra-aortic balloon pump and other mechanical assist devices) or definitive (e.g., coronary artery revascularization, valvular surgery, and cardiac transplantation). Although these interventions may improve immediate survival in the short term, only coronary artery revascularization and cardiac transplantation have been shown to improve long-term survival.

Newer developments in the management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. Unlike reentrant supraventricular tachycardia and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias, for which highly effective and safe nonpharmacologic therapies are available, the treatment of AF remains controversial and often problematic. Whereas electrical cardioversion restores sinus rhythm in most patients with AF, the maintenance of sinus rhythm often requires membrane-active antiarrhythmic drugs that may increase mortality by inducing ventricular proarrhythmia. The control of ventricular response rate, often associated with oral anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolic complications, is an alternative strategy in AF management. The relative efficacy and risks of these strategies and their respective role in different patient subgroups remain to be established. This article focuses on newer developments in the management of AF, including prospects for improved methods to maintain sinus rhythm, newer approaches to rate control, controversies regarding the use of oral anticoagulation, and novel nonpharmacologic therapies. These newer developments may lead over the next 10 years to a revolution in the management of AF as profound as that produced over the last 10 years by nonpharmacologic therapy of other arrhythmias.

Aurintricarboxylic acid prevents acute rethrombosis in a canine model of arterial thrombosis

Acute rethrombosis following thrombolytic therapy occurs in 5% to 25% of patients. We evaluated the effect of aurintricarboxylic acid (ATA), a triphenyl dye that blocks von Willebrand factor (vWF) binding to platelet glycoprotein Ib, on arterial reperfusion and acute rethrombosis following fibrinolytic therapy. Primary thrombosis was induced in the femoral arteries of anesthetized dogs by application of anodal current and partial arterial constriction. Blood flow was monitored with an electromagnetic flow probe, and primary thrombosis was considered to have occurred when blood flow was reduced to and remained at zero. Reperfusion was induced by intravenous streptokinase 30 minutes after thrombosis. Streptokinase reduced plasma fibrinogen levels from an average of 144 mg/dL to < 5 mg/dL resulting in inhibition of ADP- and epinephrine-induced platelet aggregation ex vivo. Acute rethrombosis following reperfusion occurred within 37 +/- 18 (mean +/- SD) minutes in 89% (16/18) of animals receiving thrombolytic activator treatment. Histological examination of reoccluding thrombi revealed densely aggregated platelets and erythrocytes with no detectable fibrin. In the two other study groups, ATA was infused in conjunction with thrombolytic therapy (10 arteries) or at near completion of acute rethrombosis following fibrinolytic activator treatment (6 arteries). In each case ATA prevented rethrombosis. However, concomitant administration of ATA and thrombolytic therapy delayed restoration of blood flow. ATA had no direct effect on hemodynamics, thrombin time, platelet count, or platelet aggregation response to ADP, epinephrine, or collagen. These data indicate that inhibition of vWF-platelet glycoprotein Ib interaction is effective in preventing acute rethrombosis following thrombolytic therapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Importance of the time of onset of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias on prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction

It is known that left ventricular (LV) function, severity of coronary artery disease, and the presence of ventricular arrhythmias are major determinants of prognosis in patients surviving an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, little is known about the relationship between the time of onset of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVTs) and mortality. Therefore, this study was carried out in a 48-months period on 131 patients with AMI who presented with SVT during hospitalization. Of these, 53 patients (40.5%) had arrhythmia within < 12 h of MI, while 78 patients (59.5%) had arrhythmia between 12 h and 4 days. The arrhythmias studied were atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. The patients were similar for age, gender, coronary risk factors, creatine kinase-MB peak, cardioversion and LV function. Angiographic features for patients with the < 12-h onset of arrhythmia were: 86.7% of the patients had uniarterial lesions, 8.9% had biarterial lesions, and 4.4% had triarterial lesions. Patients with the 12-h-4-day onset had 16.1%, 53.2%, and 30.6% (p < or = 0.05) of the respective lesions. Inferior wall myocardial infarction was more frequent among patients with the earlier onset (60.4%), while patients with the later onset presented more anterior wall infarctions (50.0%). Only 11.3% of the patients with the earlier onset presented with severe in-hospital congestive heart failure (Killip classes III-IV), versus 62.8% of the patients with the later onset (p < or = 0.0001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effectiveness and costs of digoxin treatment for atrial fibrillation and flutter

Clinical outcomes and costs associated with the use of digoxin in atrial fibrillation and flutter were evaluated in a prospective, observational study at 18 academic medical centers in the United States. Data were collected on 115 patients (aged > 18 years) with atrial fibrillation or flutter who were treated with digoxin for rapid ventricular rate (> or = 120 beats/min). The median time to ventricular rate control (i.e., resting ventricular rate < 100 beats/min, decrease in ventricular rate of > 20%, or sinus rhythm) was 11.6 hours from the first dose of digoxin for all evaluable patients (n = 105) and 9.5 hours for those only receiving digoxin (n = 64). Before ventricular rate control, the mean +/- SD dose of digoxin administered was 0.80 +/- 0.74 mg, and a mean of 1.4 +/- 1.8 serum digoxin concentrations were ordered per patient. Concomitant beta-blocker or calcium antagonist therapy was instituted in 47 patients (41%); in 19 of these, combination therapy was initiated within 2 hours. Adenosine was administered to 13 patients (11%). Patients spent a median of 4 days (range 1 to 25) in the hospital; 28% spent time in a coronary/intensive care unit and 79% in a telemetry bed. Loss of control (i.e., resting ventricular rate returned to > 120 beats/min) occurred at least once in 50% of patients and was associated with a longer hospital stay (p < 0.05). Based on 1991 data, the estimated mean hospital bed cost for patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter was $3,169 +/- $3,174.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Combined use of esmolol and digoxin in the acute treatment of atrial fibrillation or flutter

Safety and efficacy of simultaneous use of intravenous digoxin and esmolol in the control of rapid heart rate in 21 patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter was assessed. The mean age was 67 (range 40 to 90) years. Seven patients had class III congestive heart failure, with left ventricular ejection fraction between 18% and 61%. Baseline mean heart rate was 143 +/- 4. After 0.25 mg or 0.5 mg intravenous digoxin, esmolol was titrated with initial boluses from 2 mg/min to 16 mg/min in 25 minutes. A tolerated dose of esmolol infusion was adjusted for up to 48 hours. Rapid control of heart rate (29% decrease with heart rate 101 +/- 4) occurred at a mean interval of 21 minutes. Minimum heart rate was 87 +/- 4 at 90 minutes of treatment. Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in five patients (25%), and one patient experienced mild transient congestive heart failure. No symptomatic hypotension or bronchospasm occurred. In conclusion, simultaneous use of digoxin and esmolol is effective in safely and rapidly controlling heart rate in atrial fibrillation or flutter.