Comparison of electrophysiologic effects of quinidine and amiodarone in sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias associated with coronary artery disease

Driving Restrictions and Early Arrhythmias in Patients Receiving a Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DREAM-ICD) Study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend 4 weeks of private driving restriction after implantation of a primary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). These driving restrictions result in significant inconvenience and social implications. Advances in medical treatment and ICD programming have lowered the overall rate of device therapies. The objective of this study was to assess the incidence of ICD therapies at 30, 60, and 180 days after implantation.

METHODS

Driving Restrictions and Early Arrhythmias in Patients Receiving a Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (DREAM-ICD) was a retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 Canadian university centres enrolling patients with new implantation of a primary-prevention ICD. Device programming was standardised according to current guidelines. A total of 803 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

The cumulative rates of appropriate ICD therapies at 30, 60, and 180 days were 0.12%, 0.50%, and 0.75%, respectively. There was no syncope during the first 6 months. The median duration to the first appropriate ICD therapy was 208 (range 23-1109) days after implantation. The rate of inappropriate ICD therapies at 30 days was only 0.2%. Overall, < 13.6% of all appropriate ICD therapies occurred within the first 6 months after implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of appropriate ICD therapies within the first 30 days after device insertion is extremely low in contemporary primary prevention cohorts with guideline-concordant device programming. There was no increased risk for ventricular arrhythmia early after ICD insertion. The results of DREAM-ICD suggest the need for a revision of the existing driving restrictions for primary-prevention ICD recipients.

Different Effects of Amiodarone and Quinidine on the Homogeneity of Myocardial Refractoriness in Patients With Intraventricular Conduction Delay

BACKGROUND: Increases in QT and JT dispersion have been suggested as indicative of a proarrhythmic potential as a result of heterogeneity in myocardial refractoriness, the reduction of which by antiarrhythmic agents might be associated with a beneficial effect on the development of serious ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: To test the hypothesis that amiodarone reduces the heter-ogeneity of ventricular refractoriness to a significantly greater extent than quinidine in patients with intraventricular conduction defects under treatment for ventricular arrhythmias, the corrected and uncorrected QT and JT intervals and dispersions from 12-lead surface electrocardiograms were determined in 120 patients with intraventricular conduction defects with cardiac arrhythmias before and during treatment with amiodarone (n = 60) and quinidine (n = 60). RESULTS: Amiodarone increased QT from 403 +/- 50 ms to 459 +/- 47 ms (P <.001), with a similar increase in the corrected QT interval (QTc) (P <.001). Amiodarone reduced QT dispersion by 40% (P <.001), whereas quinidine increased by 18% (P <.001). The net effects of both drugs were similar for OTc. Amiodarone, but not quinidine, reduced heart rate significantly; amiodarone had no effect on the QRS; but quinidine increased if (P <.001). Quinidine as well as amiodarone increased the JT and JTc intervals significantly, but the effect of quinidine was qualitatively less striking. Amiodarone decreased the JT dispersion by 33% (P <.001) and JTc dispersion by 37% (P <.001). On the other hand, quinidine increased the corresponding values for JT and JTc by 18% (P <.001) and 21% (P <.001), respectively. The overall data on QT and JT dispersion indicate an improvement in the homogeneity of myocardial refractoriness with amiodarone treatment and the converse with quinidine treatment; this observation is consistent with a lower proarrhythmic propensity and mortality with amiodarone than with quinidine. Quinidine increased the QRS interval more than amiodarone, and the data indicate that in patients with intraventricular conduction defects, the monitoring of the JT interval might more accurately reflect changes in myocardial repolarization. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone and quinidine both increased the corrected and uncorrected QT and JT intervals; amiodarone decreased and quinidine increased the dispersion of these intervals, and these results suggested an improvement in the homogeneity of myocardial refractoriness as a result of amiodarone treatment and the converse as a result of quinidine treatment. Quinidine increased the QTS interval more than amiodarone, and the data indicate that in patients with intraventricular conduction defects, the monitoring of the JT interval might more accurately reflect changes in myocardial repolarization.