Electrophysiologic mechanisms of antiarrhythmic efficacy of a sotalol and class Ia drug combination: elimination of reverse use dependence

Perspective on Antiarrhythmic Drug Combinations

Physicians use multiple drugs in combination to treat hypertension, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, angina, hyperlipidemia, and many other cardiovascular conditions and risk factors. However, administering antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) in combination is rarely discussed. Yet, the possibility of increasing efficacy and/or tolerance and/or safety of AADs (by adding mechanisms, offsetting adverse mechanisms, and/or using lower doses) exists. Unfortunately, this topic has not been reviewed in any contemporary cardiac literature of which we are aware, although information regarding AAD combinations has been published. In conclusion, and accordingly, this review discusses the possibility of using AAD combinations for both ventricular arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation, in which the rationale for such combinations, considerations for such combinations, and supporting literature are covered.

Heart Failure and Sudden Cardiac Death

The Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention estimates that 5.7 million adults in the United States suffer from heart failure and 1 in 9 deaths in 2009 cited heart failure as a contributing cause. Almost 50% of patients who are diagnosed with heart failure die within 5 years of diagnosis. Cardiovascular disease is a public health burden. The prognosis of patients with heart failure has improved significantly. However, the risk for death remains high. Managing sudden death risk and intervening appropriately with primary or secondary prevention strategies are of paramount importance.

Ventricular Tachycardia with ICD Shocks: When to Medicate and When to Ablate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ventricular tachycardia occurrence in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients may result in shock delivery and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In addition, shocks may have deleterious mechanical and psychological effects. Prevention of ventricular tachycardia (VT) recurrence with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation may be warranted. Antiarrhythmic drugs are limited by incomplete efficacy and an unfavorable adverse effect profile. Catheter ablation can be effective but acute complications and long-term VT recurrence risk necessitating repeat ablation should be recognized. A shared clinical decision process accounting for patients' cardiac status, comorbidities, and goals of care is often required.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are four published randomized trials of catheter ablation for sustained monomorphic VT (SMVT) in the setting of ischemic heart disease; there are no randomized studies for non-ischemic ventricular substrates. The most recent trial is the VANISH trial which randomly allocated patients with ICD, prior infarction, and SMVT despite first-line antiarrhythmic drug therapy to catheter ablation or more aggressive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. During 28 months of follow-up, catheter ablation resulted in a 28% relative risk reduction in the composite endpoint of death, VT storm, and appropriate ICD shock (p = 0.04). In a subgroup analysis, patients having VT despite amiodarone had better outcomes with ablation as compared to increasing amiodarone dose or adding mexiletine. There is evidence for the effectiveness of both catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy for patients with myocardial infarction, an implantable defibrillator, and VT. If sotalol is ineffective in suppressing VT, either catheter ablation or initiation of amiodarone is a reasonable option. If VT occurs despite amiodarone therapy, there is evidence that catheter ablation is superior to administration of more aggressive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Early catheter ablation may be appropriate in some clinical situations such as patients presenting with relatively slow VT below ICD detection, electrical storms, hemodynamically stable VT, or in very selected patients with left ventricular assist devices. The optimal first-line suppressive therapy for VT, after ICD implantation and appropriate programming, remains to be determined. Thus far, there has not been a randomized controlled trial to compare catheter ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as a first-line treatment; the VANISH-2 study has been initiated as a pilot to examine this question.

Treatment of persistent ventricular tachycardia: Drugs or ablation?

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce the mortality risk associated with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) and can frequently terminate VT episodes painlessly, but do not prevent recurrent episodes. For patients with symptomatic recurrences, frequent asymptomatic recurrences, ICD shocks, or VT storm, most clinicians recommend strategies to suppress VT. The proarrhythmic mortality risk of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) may be mitigated by the presence of an ICD, but these medications are limited by high recurrence rates, and unfavorable side effect profiles. Catheter ablation is an alternative or adjunctive option, but is also limited by incomplete efficacy and procedural risk.

The effects of pure potassium channel blocker nifekalant and sodium channel blocker mexiletine on malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias

BACKGROUND

Patients with repetitive ventricular tachyarrhythmias - so-called electrical storm - frequently require antiarrhythmic drugs. Amiodarone is widely used for the treatment of electrical storm but is ineffective in some patients. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of stepwise administration of nifekalant, a pure potassium channel blocker, and mexiletine for electrical storm.

METHODS

This study included 44 patients with repetitive ventricular tachyarrhythmias who received stepwise therapy with nifekalant and mexiletine for electrical storm. Nifekalant was initially administered, and mexiletine was subsequently added if nifekalant failed to control ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

RESULTS

Nifekalant completely suppressed recurrences of ventricular arrhythmias in 28 patients (64%), including 6 patients in whom oral amiodarone failed to control arrhythmias. In 9 of 16 patients in whom nifekalant was partially effective but failed to suppress ventricular arrhythmias, mexiletine was added. The addition of mexiletine prevented recurrences of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 5 of these 9 patients (56%). There was no death associated with electrical storm. In total, the stepwise treatment with nifekalant and mexiletine was effective in preventing ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 33 of 44 patients (75%). There was no difference in cycle length of the ventricular tachycardia, QRS interval, QT interval, or left ventricular ejection fraction between patients who responded to antiarrhythmic drugs and those who did not. During follow-up, 8 patients had repetitive ventricular tachyarrhythmia recurrences, and the stepwise treatment was effective in 6 of these 8 patients (75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The stepwise treatment with nifekalant and mexiletine was highly effective in the suppression of electrical storm.

The Burden of Atrial Fibrillation: Should We Abandon Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia, exacting a substantial toll in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Until recently, the prevailing philosophy has been that restoration and maintenance of normal sinus rhythm, as opposed to control of ventricular response rate, was the optimal approach to treatment of AF. A series of landmark trials (AFFIRM, RACE, STAF, and PIAF) have called this strategy into question, suggesting outcomes are equivalent with both approaches. These data do not mean that rhythm control is not beneficial, but highlight the limitations of current therapies to achieve and maintain sinus rhythm. Limitations of the rhythm-control strategy may be related to our difficulty in accurately documenting symptomatic benefit from this approach, the lack of efficacy and excessive adverse-effect burden associated with currently available antiarrhythmic agents, and selection biases in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials of rhythm control versus rate control, making the trials incompletely representative of the population eligible for therapy. New pharmacologic agents under development feature increased atrial selectivity or multi-channel-blocking properties (or both). As a result, these compounds may be more effective in prolonging atrial refractoriness and may also have reduced proarrhythmic potential. It is premature to abandon the concept of rhythm control in AF until we have trials designed to include younger and highly symptomatic patients, more sensitive tools to measure symptomatic improvement, and safer, more effective antiarrhythmic agents.

Long-term prognostic value of restitution slope in patients with ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathies

Background

An action potential duration (APD) restitution curve with a steep slope ≥1 has been associated with increased susceptibility for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. We aimed to evaluate the “restitution hypothesis” and tested ventricular APD restitution slope as well as effective refractory period (ERP)/APD ratio for long-term prognostic value in patients with ischemic (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

Methodology/Principal Findings

Monophasic action potentials were recorded in patients with ICM (n = 32) and DCM (n = 42) undergoing routine programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS). Left ventricular ejection fraction was 32±7% and 28±9%, respectively. APD and ERP were measured at baseline stimulation (S₁) and upon introduction of one to three extrastimuli (S₂–S₄). ERP/APD ratios and the APD restitution curve were calculated and the maximum restitution slope was determined. After a mean follow-up of 6.1±3.0 years, the combined end-point of mortality and and/or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock was not predicted by restitution slope or ERP/APD ratios. Comparing S₂ vs. S₃ vs. S₄ extrastimuli for restitution slope (1.5±0.6 vs. 1.4±0.4 vs. 1.3±0.5; p = NS), additional extrastimuli did not lead to a steepening restitution slope. ERP/APD ratio decreased with additional extrastimuli (0.98±0.09 [S₁] vs. 0.97±0.10 [S₂] vs. 0.93±0.11 [S₃]; p = 0.03 S₁ vs. S₃). Positive PVS was strongly predictive of outcome (p = 0.006).

Conclusions/Significance

Neither ventricular APD restitution slope nor ERP/APD ratios predict outcome in patients with ICM or DCM.

Chronic Suppression of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with ICDs

In this review, we examine the data evaluating the role of adjuvant therapy with antiarrthymic drugs (AADs) in chronic suppression of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the patient with an ICD. It must be noted that all uses of AADs for this indication represent "off-label" prescription. No AAD is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically as a therapy to reduce ICD shocks.

Effects of procainamide and sotalol on restitution properties, dispersion of refractoriness, and ventricular fibrillation activation patterns in pigs

BACKGROUND

Interest in combining antiarrhythmic drugs has been prompted by the lack of efficacy of monotherapies and the toxicity resulting from high doses of individual agents.

OBJECTIVES

We tested the hypothesis that procainamide and sotalol combined have greater beneficial effects on restitution, on the dispersion of refractoriness, and on decreasing the complexity of ventricular fibrillation (VF) than either drug alone.

METHODS

Six open-chest pigs received intravenous procainamide (15 mg/kg load and 50 microg/kg/min maintenance) followed by sotalol (1.5 mg/kg). Another six pigs received sotalol first and procainamide second. Before drugs and after each drug, 20-second episodes of electrically induced VF were recorded from a 21 x 24 unipolar electrode plaque (2 mm spacing) sutured on the lateral posterior left ventricular epicardium. Restitution properties and dispersion of refractoriness were estimated from activation recovery intervals during pacing.

RESULTS

The combination of the two drugs reduced the maximum slope of the restitution curve and during VF reduced the number of wavefronts, the activation rate, the percentage of wavefront families exhibiting reentry, and the conduction velocity more than either drug alone. In addition, in the group that received sotalol first, both drugs together reduced the SD and the coefficient of variation of the spatial dispersion of refractoriness compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Procainamide and sotalol combined have greater beneficial effects on restitution properties, dispersion of refractoriness, and the complexity of VF than either drug alone compared with baseline.

Approach to antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with ICDs and frequent activations

Patients with an implantable defibrillator may require concomitant antiarrhythmic drug therapy to reduce therapy from the device, especially shocks from the device. New evidence suggests that amiodarone, in combination with b-blockade, is the most effective treatment to reduce the frequency of defibrillator therapies, but sotalol and azimilide have also been shown to be effective. Electrical storm is a serious condition that occurs in 20% of patients living with a defibrillator, and its management requires a complex approach to the patient.

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.

A Benefit-Risk Assessment of Class III Antiarrhythmic Agents

With beta-blockers as the exception, increasing doubt is emerging on the value of antiarrhythmic drug therapy following a series of trials that have either shown no mortality benefit or even an excess mortality. Vaughan Williams class I drugs are generally avoided in patients with structural heart disease, and class IV drugs are avoided in heart failure. Unfortunately, arrhythmias are a growing problem due to an increase in the incidence of atrial fibrillation and sudden death. The population is becoming older and more patients survive for a longer time period with congestive heart failure, which again increases the frequency of both supraventricular as well as ventricular arrhythmias. Class III antiarrhythmic drugs act by blocking repolarising currents and thereby prolong the effective refractory period of the myocardium. This is believed to facilitate termination of re-entry tachyarrhythmias. This class of drugs is developed for treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. Amiodarone, sotalol, dofetilide, and ibutilide are examples of class III drugs that are currently available. Amiodarone and sotalol have other antiarrhythmic properties in addition to pure class III action, which differentiates them from the others. However, all have potential serious adverse events. Proarrhythmia, especially torsade de pointes, is a common problem making the benefit-risk ratio of these drugs a key question. Class III drugs have been evaluated in different settings: primary and secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias and in treatment of atrial fibrillation or flutter. Based on existing evidence there is no routine indication for antiarrhythmic drug therapy other than beta-blockers in patients at high risk of sudden death. Subgroup analyses of trials with amiodarone and dofetilide suggest that patients with atrial fibrillation may have a mortality reduction with these drugs. However, this needs to be tested in a prospective trial. Similarly, subgroups that will benefit from prophylactic treatment with class III antiarrhythmic drugs may be found based on QT-intervals or - in the future - from genetic testing. Class III drugs are effective in converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for the maintenance of sinus rhythm after conversion. This is currently by far the most important indication for this class of drugs. As defined by recent guidelines, amiodarone and dofetilide have their place as second-line therapy except for patients with heart failure where they are first line therapy being the only drugs where the safety has been documented for this group of high risk patients.

Effects of EGIS-7229 (S 21407), a novel class III antiarrhythmic drug, on myocardial refractoriness to electrical stimulation in vivo and in vitro

The I(Kr) blocker EGIS-7229 (S-21407), displays class Ib and class IV effects that may alter its pharmacologic profile compared with those of pure I(Kr) blockers. Therefore, the concentration- and frequency-dependent effects of EGIS-7229, and of the I(Kr) blockers d,l-sotalol and dofetilide, on the effective refractory period (ERP) were measured in isolated right ventricular papillary muscle of the rabbit in vitro. The effects of these drugs on right ventricular fibrillation threshold (RVFT) at increasing intravenous doses were also determined in anesthetized cats. Dofetilide and d,l-sotalol increased ERP in a concentration-dependent manner (dofetilide: 3-100 nM; d,l-sotalol: 3-100 microM) with strong reverse frequency dependence at high concentrations. EGIS-7229 concentration dependently lengthened ERP at 1-30 microM. Its effect on ERP was clearly reverse frequency dependent at 3 microM, but this feature of the drug diminished at 10 microM and was not apparent at 30 microM. The effect of EGIS-7229 (30 microM) on ERP was devoid of reverse frequency dependence as it was more effective (31%) than dofetilide (16 %) at high-pacing rate (3 Hz), whereas it was less effective (50%) than dofetilide (70%) at slow-pacing rate (1 Hz). Reverse frequency-dependent ERP effect of dofetilide (100 nM) was similarly abolished by the addition of lidocaine (30 microM). EGIS-7229 (1-8 mg/kg iv), d,l-sotalol (1-8 mg/kg iv), and dofetilide (10-80 microg/kg iv) caused a dose-dependent increase in RVFT. The minimum effective dose of d,l-sotalol and EGIS-7229 was 1 and 2 mg/kg, respectively, whereas that of dofetilide was 10 microg/kg. EGIS-7229 induced a smaller peak effect in RVFT than sotalol or dofetilide. In conclusion, EGIS-7229 markedly increased refractoriness to electrical stimulation in vitro and in vivo. Compared with pure I(Kr) blockers, the benefits of EGIS-7229 seem to be a greater lengthening of effective refractory period at rapid stimulation rates, suggesting a strong antiarrhythmic action, and a smaller effect at slow stimulation rates, suggesting low potential to induce early afterdepolarizations.

Antiarrhythmic agents: drug interactions of clinical significance

The management of cardiac arrhythmias has grown more complex in recent years. Despite the recent focus on nonpharmacological therapy, most clinical arrhythmias are treated with existing antiarrhythmics. Because of the narrow therapeutic index of antiarrhythmic agents, potential drug interactions with other medications are of major clinical importance. As most antiarrhythmics are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 enzyme system, pharmacokinetic interactions constitute the majority of clinically significant interactions seen with these agents. Antiarrhythmics may be substrates, inducers or inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes, and many of these metabolic interactions have been characterised. However, many potential interactions have not, and knowledge of how antiarrhythmic agents are metabolised by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system may allow clinicians to predict potential interactions. Drug interactions with Vaughn-Williams Class II (beta-blockers) and Class IV (calcium antagonists) agents have previously been reviewed and are not discussed here. Class I agents, which primarily block fast sodium channels and slow conduction velocity, include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, lidocaine (lignocaine), mexiletine, flecainide and propafenone. All of these agents except procainamide are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 system and are involved in a number of drug-drug interactions, including over 20 different interactions with quinidine. Quinidine has been observed to inhibit the metabolism of digoxin, tricyclic antidepressants and codeine. Furthermore, cimetidine, azole antifungals and calcium antagonists can significantly inhibit the metabolism of quinidine. Procainamide is excreted via active tubular secretion, which may be inhibited by cimetidine and trimethoprim. Other Class I agents may affect the disposition of warfarin, theophylline and tricyclic antidepressants. Many of these interactions can significantly affect efficacy and/or toxicity. Of the Class III antiarrhythmics, amiodarone is involved in a significant number of interactions since it is a potent inhibitor of several cytochrome P450 enzymes. It can significantly impair the metabolism of digoxin, theophylline and warfarin. Dosages of digoxin and warfarin should empirically be decreased by one-half when amiodarone therapy is added. In addition to pharmacokinetic interactions, many reports describe the use of antiarrhythmic drug combinations for the treatment of arrhythmias. By combining antiarrhythmic drugs and utilising additive electrophysiological/pharmacodynamic effects, antiarrhythmic efficacy may be improved and toxicity reduced. As medication regimens grow more complex with the aging population, knowledge of existing and potential drug-drug interactions becomes vital for clinicians to optimise drug therapy for every patient.

Can antiarrhythmic agents be selected based on mechanism of action?

When selecting an antiarrhythmic agent the clinician needs to be able to accurately predict the probability that a particular drug will serve its intended purpose in a given patient. This is difficult because of the complexity of variables which govern the relationship between drug administration and clinical outcome. The efficacy of a drug may potentially be predicted from its mechanism of action. At least two classifications of antiarrhythmic agents based on mechanism of action have been proposed. The Vaughan Williams classification is based on the predominant electrophysiological effects of a drug on the action potential. In the Sicilian Gambit approach, a number of potential targets ('vulnerable parameters') for drug action are identified and antiarrhythmic drugs or substances that affect cardiac electrophysiology are characterised by their actions on each of these. The usefulness of these classification systems in predicting antiarrhythmic drug efficacy are limited. Furthermore, in the Vaughan Williams classification not all drugs in the same class have identical effects, whereas some drugs in different classes have overlapping actions. The Sicilian Gambit requires in-depth knowledge regarding cellular and molecular targets of antiarrhythmic agents which may make it intimidating or simply impractical for regular clinical use. Surrogate measures such as 24-hour Holter monitoring and programmed electrical stimulation have been used to predict anti-arrhythmic drug efficacy. However, studies such the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) have shown that suppression of ventricular ectopy on Holter monitoring does not necessarily correlate with improved survival and may in fact be dangerous. Conversely, studies using programmed electrical stimulation to assess drug effect on variables such as tachycardia inducibility, refractory period and ventricular tachycardia cycle length show that suppression of tachycardia inducibility, prolongation of refractory period and prolongation of ventricular tachycardia cycle length, are all associated with reduced recurrence of tachycardia and possibly improved survival. The most practical use of the current classification systems applied to antiarrhythmic agents may be in their ability to predict with reasonable accuracy, the risk and type of proarrhythmia based on the mechanism of action of an agent.