Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT): drug testing and as-treated analysis

Computational approaches to understand the adverse drug effect on potassium, sodium and calcium channels for predicting TdP cardiac arrhythmias

Ion channels play a crucial role in the cardiovascular system. Our understanding of cardiac ion channel function has improved since their first discoveries. The flow of potassium, sodium and calcium ions across cardiomyocytes is vital for regular cardiac rhythm. Blockage of these channels, delays cardiac repolarization or tend to shorten repolarization and may induce arrhythmia. Detection of drug risk by channel blockade is considered essential for drug regulators. Advanced computational models can be used as an early screen for torsadogenic potential in drug candidates. New drug candidates that are determined to not cause blockage are more likely to pass successfully through preclinical trials and not be withdrawn later from the marketplace by manufacturer. Several different approved drugs, however, can cause a distinctive polymorphic ventricular arrhythmia known as torsade de pointes (TdP), which may lead to sudden death. The objective of the present study is to review the mechanisms and computational models used to assess the risk that a drug may TdP.

KEY POINTS

There is strong evidence from multiple studies that blockage of the L-type calcium current reduces risk of TdP. Blockage of sodium channels slows cardiac action potential conduction, however, not all sodium channel blocking antiarrhythmic drugs produce a significant effect, while late sodium channel block reduces TdP. Interestingly, there are some drugs that block the hERG potassium channel and therefore cause QT prolongation, but they are not associated with TdP. Recent studies confirmed the necessity of studying multiple distinctionic ion channels which are responsible for cardiac related diseases or TdP, to obtain an improved clinical TdP risk prediction of compound interactions and also for designing drugs.

Electrophysiological predictors of propafenone efficacy in prevention of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant and atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia

Aim

To assess the efficacy of propafenone in prevention of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and orthodromic atrioventricular tachycardia (AVRT) based on the clinical results of arrhythmia recurrence and find the electrophysiological predictor of propafenone effectiveness.

Methods

This retrospective study included 44 participants in a 12-month period, who were divided in two groups: group A – in which propafenone caused complete ventriculo-atrial block and group B – in which propafenone did not cause complete ventriculo-atrial block.

Results

Group A had significantly lower incidence of tachycardia than group B (95% vs 70.8%, P = 0.038), and complete ventriculo-atrial block predicted the efficacy of propafenone oral therapy in the prevention of tachycardia (sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 52.8%, positive predictive value 95%, negative predictive value 29.2%). Patients with AVNRT in group B who did not experience the recurrences of tachycardia had significantly shorter echo zone before intravenous administration of propafenone than the patients who experienced episodes of sustained tachycardia (median 40 ms [range 15-60 ms] vs 79 ms [range 50-180 ms], P = 0.008).

Conclusion

In patients with non-inducible tachycardia, complete ventriculo-atrial block can be used as an electrophysiological predictor of the efficacy of propafenone oral therapy in the prevention of tachycardia. In patients with non-inducible AVNRT, but without complete ventriculo-atrial block, propafenone was more effective in patients with shorter echo zone of tachycardia.

Genetic Polymorphisms as Risk Stratification Tool in Primary Preventive ICD Therapy

More and more implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are implanted as primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, major problem in practice is to identify high-risk patients for SCD. Different methods for noninvasive risk stratification do not have a sufficient positive or negative predictive value. Since current approaches lead to implantation of ICDs in a large number of patients who will never suffer an arrhythmic event and simultaneously patients still die of SCD who currently did not seem eligible for primary preventive ICD implantation, there is a need for additional tools for risk stratification. Epidemiological studies point to a hereditary risk of SCD. Different susceptibility of each person concerning arrhythmogenic events might be explained by genetic polymorphisms. By obtaining an individual “pattern” of polymorphisms of genes encoding for proteins which are important in arrhythmogenesis in one patient, risk stratification in primary prevention of SCD might by improved.

The role of electrophysiology study in risk stratification of sudden cardiac death

Patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction are at high risk of sudden cardiac death. However, most of these high-risk patients will never develop potential fatal ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, modalities that stratify patients according to their risk of sudden cardiac death are needed. The electrophysiology study has, for decades, been used to prognosticate on patients' risk of sudden cardiac death. Recent data from the Multicenter Unsustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) and Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) demonstrate that in patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, an electrophysiology study can help identify patients who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death. However, in these patient populations, the prognostic ability of an electrophysiology study is only modest and the negative predictive value is poor. In the future, combining the results of noninvasive modalities with invasive electrophysiology testing may improve our prognostic ability. Furthermore, expanding the role of the electrophysiology study to include therapeutic ablations may alter a patient's future risk of sudden cardiac death.

Treatment of Ventricular Dysrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death: A Guideline-Based Approach for Patients With Chronic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

With the rise in the use of device therapy implants, we are better identifying appropriate chronic heart failure patients for primary implantable defibrillator therapy who are at risk of ventricular arrhythmia. As our knowledge expands, however, controversial issues emerge. Guidelines have been endorsed by the major international societies, such as the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology. In view of certain variances in recommendations and new data, a recent joint guideline statement has been issued from these 3 societies regarding management of ventricular arrhythmia and preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure. In this review, the recent joint statement is compared with those from the Heart Failure Society of America (Heart Failure Practice Guidelines 2006) and ACC/AHA (Heart Failure Guidelines 2005), with a special emphasis on new expanded criteria for primary prevention in both ischemic and nonischemic heart disease. In addition, the authors review current guidelines for electrophysiology testing in chronic left ventricular dysfunction and the emerging role of microvolt T-wave alternans as a means of risk stratification.

Hybrid therapies for ventricular arrhythmias

In recent years several trials demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillation (ICD) therapy in reducing cardiac and total mortality in patients affected by rapid ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation. Nevertheless, ICD do not prevent arrhythmia recurrences, thus being a palliative and not a curative treatment modality. The tolerance to ICD therapy varies greatly, and within individuals, this leading to a nonuniform acceptance of this form of therapy. The very frequent occurrence of VT, defined as an arrhythmic storm, may be a life threatening condition. The majority of ICD patients is under antiarrhythmic drug therapy, to reduce episodes of VT or to make antitachycardia pacing more effective by slowing the tachycardia rate. Drug therapy, however, may cause additional problems, and does not represent the optimal solution. The prevention of VT and/or ventricular fibrillation episodes and excessive ICD therapy, remains a worthwhile goal. Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is a curative approach, and can be expected to reduce the frequency of recurrent VT episodes in the majority of patients. The combination of these treatment modalities (ICD and RFCA) is often described as hybrid therapy, implying that the two treatments act providing some form of synergism. In experienced centers, RFCA is now performed, regardless of whether the VT rate is rapid and/or is hemodynamically unstable. Newer mapping and ablation techniques are now available, enhancing the acute success rate of the procedure. In this review the most recent application of VT catheter ablation and the use of advanced mapping and ablation techniques will be discussed.

Prevention of sudden cardiac death

It is often unclear why some patients suffer sudden cardiac death (SCD), or even what risk factors correlate best with the syndrome. This review describes current thinking on the prevention of SCD. Most studies have focused on the prevention of potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias in patients post myocardial infarction (MI). While pharmacotherapy has a role in the prevention of SCD in patients post MI, the interpretation of drug trials can be problematic. This is because not all patients participating in such trials received optimized medical therapy by today's standards. As a result, trial outcomes for new therapies may not reflect their true efficacy when they are added to a background of best medical care. The two principal prophylactic modalities for SCD studied to date are antiarrhythmic drug therapy and use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). At the present time, antiarrhythmic drugs, such as the class III agent amiodarone, seem to display relatively limited efficacy for the primary prevention of sudden death in most patients post MI. Most clinical trials have found that ICD therapy has a significant mortality benefit in patients at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. This has been demonstrated in primary prevention trials, and in secondary prevention trials such as Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID), which studied patients who survived a near-fatal ventricular arrhythmia. Based on an analysis of secondary prevention trials, the single patient characteristic that best predicted an advantage of ICD therapy over antiarrhythmic drug therapy was a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction < or = 35%. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has been established as having a mortality benefit in patients with dyssynchronous LV contraction associated with dilated cardiomyopathy.

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in dilated cardiomyopathy

In patients with structural heart disease, ventricular arrhythmias are associated with an increased risk of overall mortality and sudden cardiac death (SCD). Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) is common in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy of both ischemic and nonischemic origin. Recent studies suggest that NSVT may be a marker, but not a significant predictor, of mortality and SCD in that suppression of NSVT in these patients using antiarrhythmic drugs is of questionable benefit. Additionally, indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation do not include NSVT. This article focuses on the prognostic significance and treatment of patients with NSVT and ischemic or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

Clinical usefulness of electrophysiologic testing in patients with ventricular tachycardia and chronic chagasic cardiomyopathy treated with amiodarone or sotalol

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the role of electrophysiologic testing to identify therapeutic strategies for the treatment of patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and chronic chagasic cardiomyopathy treated with amiodarone or sotalol.

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients [69 men (60%); mean age 52 +/- 10 years] with chagasic cardiomyopathy presenting with symptomatic VT were studied after loading with Class III antiarrhythmic drugs; 78 had a history of sustained VT, and 37 with symptomatic nonsustained VT had sustained VT induced at baseline electrophysiologic study. All but 12 patients also underwent baseline electrophysiologic study. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.49 +/- 0.14. Based on results of electrophysiologic study after loading with Class III drugs, patients were divided into three groups: group 1 (n = 23) had no sustained VT induced; group 2 (n = 45) had only tolerated sustained VT induced; and group 3 (n = 47) had hemodynamically unstable sustained VT induced. After a mean follow-up of 52 +/- 32 months, total mortality rate was 39.1%; it was significantly higher in group 3 than in groups 2 and 1 [69%, 22.2%, and 26%, respectively, P < 0.0001, hazard ratio (HR) 10.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8, 21.8]. There was no significant difference in total mortality rate between groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.40, HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.75, 4.58). Cardiac mortality and sudden cardiac death rates also were higher in group 3 patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with chagasic cardiomyopathy and sustained VT, electrophysiologic testing can predict long-term efficacy of Class III antiarrhythmic drugs. This may help in the selection of patients for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

Amiodarone-induced postrepolarization refractoriness suppresses induction of ventricular fibrillation

It is still incompletely understood why amiodarone is such a potent antiarrhythmic drug. We hypothesized that chronic amiodarone treatment produces postrepolarization refractoriness (PRR) without conduction slowing and that PRR modifies the induction of ventricular arrhythmias. In this study, the hearts of 15 amiodarone-pretreated (50 mg/kg p.o. for 6 weeks) rabbits and 13 controls were isolated and eight monophasic action potentials were simultaneously recorded from the epicardium and endocardium of both ventricles. Steady-state action potential duration (APD), conduction times, refractory periods, and dispersion of action potential durations were determined during programmed stimulation and during 50-Hz burst stimuli, and related to arrhythmia inducibility. Amiodarone prolonged APD by 12 to 15 ms at pacing cycle lengths of 300 to 600 ms (p < 0.05) but did not significantly increase conduction times or dispersion of APD. Amiodarone prolonged refractoriness more than action potential duration, resulting in PRR (refractory period - APD at 90% repolarization, 14 +/- 10 ms, p < 0.05 versus controls). PRR curtailed the initial sloped part of the APD restitution curve by 20%. During burst stimulation, pronounced amiodarone-induced PRR (40 +/- 15 ms, p < 0.05 versus controls) reduced the inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias (p < 0.05 versus controls). Furthermore, in 35% of bursts only monomorphic ventricular tachycardias and no longer ventricular fibrillation were inducible in amiodarone-treated hearts (p < 0.05 versus controls). Chronic amiodarone treatment prevents ventricular tachycardias by inducing PRR without much conduction slowing, thereby curtailing the initial part of APD restitution. PRR without conduction slowing is a desirable feature of drugs designed to prevent ventricular arrhythmias.

Selection of endpoints in atrial fibrillation studies

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the tachyarrhythmia of the new millennium. There has been a dramatic increase in research on the management of this problem over the last 10 years. Presently, there is no clear consensus on the most appropriate endpoints to be used in studies of therapy for AF, particularly those concerning rhythm management itself. Endpoints for studies of rhythm management should be based firmly on the objectives of therapy for AF. Some objectives of therapy are obvious, but others, such as reduction of mortality, are not and are somewhat controversial. Clinically relevant endpoints are to be preferred but have been underutilized. Using clinical events as endpoints is complicated by the fact that event rates are low and large sample sizes are needed. Cost and cost-effectiveness are endpoints that are becoming increasingly important but also have been underutilized. Clinical classification of AF is an important factor to be considered in planning studies of AF rhythm management. Patient selection can have a profound effect on the outcome of certain surrogate endpoints. The main limitation of these endpoints is that they assume improvement in the surrogate measurement is closely correlated to a good clinical outcome. In fact, there is ample evidence that such a correlation is quite poor at times. Potential solutions to the problems discussed here include wider appreciation of the problem, use of carefully crafted composite clinical endpoints, and better calibration of surrogate endpoints against clinical endpoints. More research on these issues is urgently needed.

[Indications of automatic ventricular implantable defibrillator. Implications for daily practice]

The authors were the redactors of the Guidelines of the French Society of Cardiology for the indications of the automatic implantable defibillator, derived from the available indication in USA, and from the ulteriorly performed controlled studies. Three Class-I indications were selected: 1) circulatory arrest due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF) whithout acute curable aetiology. 2) sustained VT with underlying heart disease and contractile alterations. 3) non-sustained VT with prior myocardial infarction and LVEF < 35% with inductible despite maximal drug therapy. Class-II indications were also three: 1) inheritable disease with high risk of sudden death without known effective therapy. 2) Syncope in patients with underlying heart disease and inductible VT or VF during electrophysiologic study. 3) VT or VF in patients in list for heart transplant.