Indecainide for treatment of ventricular ectopic depolarizations: efficacy, pharmacokinetics, hemodynamic effects and safety

Pirmenol: an antiarrhythmic drug with unique electrocardiographic features--a double-blind placebo-controlled comparison with quinidine

Previous reports have stated that pirmenol is a Class IA antiarrhythmic drug that prolongs the QT interval, but did not use computerized electrocardiography. We randomized 18 patients with frequent ventricular ectopic depolarizations to pirmenol (8 patients) or quinidine (10 patients). Pirmenol was effective and tolerated for suppression of arrhythmia in all 7 patients treated (1 patient withdrew for personal reasons) but quinidine was effective and tolerated for 4 weeks in only 5 of 10 patients (p less than 0.05). Using computerized 12-lead electrocardiography, the mean change in PR interval from placebo to treatment was 5 +/- 18 ms for quinidine and 5 +/- 11 ms for pirmenol (p = NS). The mean change in QRS interval was 5 +/- 14 ms for quinidine and 10 +/- 5 ms for pirmenol (p = NS). The mean change in QT interval was 46 +/- 30 ms for quinidine and 8 +/- 9 ms for pirmenol (p less than 0.01) and the mean change in JT interval was 41 +/- 36 ms for quinidine and -2 +/- 10 ms for pirmenol (p less than 0.01). After the double-blind phase, 4 quinidine patients had computerized electrocardiographic intervals measured on pirmenol; the above findings were confirmed. These electrocardiographic features of pirmenol clearly distinguish it from quinidine, the prototype Class IA drug. However, pirmenol has minimal effect on the PR and QRS intervals, and thus does not appear to be a Class IC drug either. Although its electrocardiographic features are closest to Class IB, its electrophysiology in isolated cells and its antiarrhythmic and side effect profile are atypical for a IB agent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Antiarrhythmic and hemodynamic evaluation of indecainide and procainamide in nonsustained ventricular tachycardia

The present trial was a placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel study comparing indecainide to procainamide. A 24-hour intravenous phase measured and compared invasive hemodynamics, followed by oral administration for assessment of arrhythmia suppression. Thirty-two patients (mean age 61 years) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) were evaluated, 15 while receiving indecainide and 17 while receiving procainamide. A total of 8 patients had serious toxicity during the intravenous phase; 6 receiving indecainide experienced increased left ventricular dysfunction or worsening arrhythmia (sustained VT, arrhythmic death) while 2 receiving procainamide developed serious hypotension. Proarrhythmia developed in 3 of 15 (20%) of the indecainide patients, but in no procainamide patient. In those tolerating indecainide, long-term suppression of ventricular premature complexes (VPCs) and of runs of VT was more consistent than with procainamide. While indecainide was a potent suppressor of spontaneous VPCs and VT, patients with significant left ventricular dysfunction could not tolerate it. The indecainide patients developing serious toxicity had a common hemodynamic profile: ejection fraction less than 25%, elevated left ventricular filling pressures, low cardiac and stroke volume index and minimal cardiac reserve. Indecainide has a poor risk-benefit ratio in patients similar to the current population, who have potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias and severe left ventricular dysfunction.

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy for suppression of ventricular arrhythmia: experience with 122 patients treated for two years

Although there are many reports of the short-term effectiveness of antiarrhythmic drugs for suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations, there are less data available on the long-term use of these drugs. We treated 122 patients for up to 2 years with antiarrhythmic drugs for suppression of frequent ventricular ectopic depolarizations. The percent suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia for each drug was determined at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of therapy. Among 33 patients treated with flecainide, the mean suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations (average of all data during 24 months) was 93 +/- 17% and of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia was 97 +/- 7%. In 27 patients treated with encainide, the mean suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations was 88 +/- 18% and of ventricular tachycardia was 95 +/- 16%. Among 26 patients treated with propafenone, the mean suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations was 77 +/- 32% and of ventricular tachycardia was 93 +/- 15%. For the 20 patients treated with moricizine, the mean suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations was 62 +/- 35% and of ventricular tachycardia was 90 +/- 14%. Among 16 patients treated with amiodarone, the mean suppression of ventricular ectopic depolarizations was 92 +/- 14% and of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia was 99 +/- 3%. In 54 of the 122 patients (44%), the study drug was stopped during 2 years of therapy because of death (2 sudden, 2 unwitnessed and 6 noncardiac), side effects (21 patients), lack or of loss of efficacy (13 patients), and noncompliance (10 patients).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Recent antiarrhythmic drugs

Clinical failure of antiarrhythmic drugs often occurs in practice. Therefore, there is a need for new, effective and long-acting drugs with a wide therapeutic range and a low level of toxicity. Most new class I compounds block the fast sodium ion inward current of myocardial cells. According to their effects on the recovery kinetics of the sodium ion channel, these drugs are classified into 3 groups: IA (intermediate--cibenzoline, pirmenol, hydroxy-3-S-dihydroquinidine, quinacainol); IB (fast--tocainide, moricizine); IC (slow--flecainide, encainide, propafenone, lorcainide, indecainide, recainam and penticainide). Class IC drugs greatly depress intracardiac conduction and are the most potent antiarrhythmic compounds able to suppress ventricular premature beats. However, it is doubtful that long-term suppression of ventricular arrhythmias will improve survival of the patients. Some new drugs have been developed belonging to other classes: class II, esmolol, a new ultrashort-acting beta blocker; class III, N-acetyl-procainamide and sotalol, which prolong duration of the action potential and increase ventricular refractoriness; class IV, the mixed sodium ion-calcium ion-potassium ion antagonist, bepridil. The pharmacologic properties and the clinical effects of these new antiarrhythmic drugs are reviewed. However, future therapeutic trends will depend on the results of large multicenter clinical secondary prevention trials such as the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. New antiarrhythmic drugs with original electrophysiologic profiles and minimal adverse effects must prove their ability not only to suppress arrhythmias but also to reduce sudden cardiac death rate.