Dofetilide-Associated QT Prolongation: Total Body Weight Versus Adjusted or Ideal Body Weight for Dosing

Drug-induced QT interval prolongation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation. It is unknown if HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is also associated with an increased risk. Dofetilide and sotalol are potent QT interval-prolonging agents that are frequently used in patients with HFpEF, in whom atrial fibrillation is a common comorbidity. We tested the hypothesis that the risk of QT interval prolongation associated with dofetilide and sotalol is increased in patients with HFpEF. We conducted a retrospective cohort study conducted using electronic health records from the Indiana Network for Patient Care (January 31, 2010 -May 3, 2021). After removing patients with overlapping diagnoses of HFpEF and HFrEF, no diagnosis code, and absence of QT interval records, we identified patients taking dofetilide or sotalol among three groups: HFrEF (n = 138), HFpEF (n = 109), and no HF (n = 729). QT prolongation was defined as heart rate-corrected QT (QTc) > 500 ms during dofetilide/sotalol therapy. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) for QT prolongation were determined by univariate analysis. Adjusted ORs were determined by generalized estimating equations (GEE) with logit link to account for an individual cluster with different times of hospitalization and covariates. QTc prolongation associated with dofetilide or sotalol occurred in 53.2%, 71.7% and 30.0% of patients with HFpEF, HFrEF, and patients with no HF, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, race, serum potassium and magnesium concentrations, kidney function, concomitant drug therapy, and comorbid conditions, the adjusted odds of QTc prolongation were significantly higher in patients with HFpEF [OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.17-3.33)], and in those with HFrEF [OR = 5.23, (3.15-8.67)], compared to those with no evidence of HF. The odds of QT prolongation among inpatients receiving dofetilide or sotalol were increased in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF compared to those who did not have HF.

Effect of Obesity on the Use of Antiarrhythmics in Adults With Atrial Fibrillation: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and obesity coexist in approximately 37.6 million and 650 million people globally, respectively. The anatomical and physiological changes in individuals with obesity may influence the pharmacokinetic properties of drugs.

AIM

This review aimed to describe the evidence of the effect of obesity on the pharmacokinetics of antiarrhythmics in people with AF.

METHODS

Three databases were searched from inception to June 2023. Original studies that addressed the use of antiarrhythmics in adults with AF and concomitant obesity were included.

RESULTS

A total of 4549 de-duplicated articles were screened, and 114 articles underwent full-text review. Ten studies were included in this narrative synthesis: seven cohort studies, two pharmacokinetic studies, and a single case report. Samples ranged from 1 to 371 participants, predominately males (41%-85%), aged 59-75 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 23-66 kg/m2. The two most frequently investigated antiarrhythmics were amiodarone and dofetilide. Other drugs investigated included diltiazem, flecainide, disopyramide, propafenone, dronedarone, sotalol, vernakalant, and ibutilide. Findings indicate that obesity may affect the pharmacokinetics of amiodarone and sodium channel blockers (e.g., flecainide, disopyramide, and propafenone). Factors such as drug lipophilicity may also influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug and the need for dose modification.

DISCUSSION

Antiarrhythmics are not uniformly affected by obesity. This observation is based on heterogeneous studies of participants with an average BMI and poorly controlled confounding factors such as multimorbidity, concomitant medications, varying routes of administration, and assessment of obesity. Controlled trials with stratification at the time of recruitment for obesity are necessary to determine the significance of these findings.

Dofetilide Dose Reductions and Discontinuation in Obese Compared with Nonobese Patients

ABSTRACT

Dofetilide is an antiarrhythmic agent and primarily eliminated renally. Initial dosing is determined by creatinine clearance, calculated by total body weight in the Cockcroft-Gault equation. To date, there is no evidence comparing the dosing of dofetilide in obese versus nonobese patients. We conducted a retrospective review of 217 adults admitted for dofetilide loading to evaluate the tolerability of dofetilide in obese versus nonobese patients. The rate of dose adjustments, including dose reductions and discontinuations, was compared between obese versus nonobese patients in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Electrocardiograms were collected throughout the loading period, and calculation of QT intervals was performed. Obese patients did not have a significantly higher frequency of dose adjustments compared with nonobese patients (51.5% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.33). Using total body weight to determine starting doses was associated with great odds of dose adjustments compared with ideal body weight (OR 3.69, P = 0.002) and adjusted body weight (OR 4.46, P = 0.02). Men required significantly fewer dose adjustments compared with women on multivariate analysis (OR 0.53, P = 0.03). Obesity is not associated with an increase in the rate of dose adjustments. Total body weight should be used with caution to calculate initial doses of dofetilide in women because it may lead to a higher rate of dose adjustments compared with ideal body weight. Additional studies are needed to confirm the optimal method for selecting starting doses of dofetilide in women, particularly those with a body mass index of ≥30.

Anesthetic strategy for obese patients during gastroscopy: deep sedation or conscious sedation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This paper aims to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the obese patients between conscious sedation and deep sedation and whether conscious sedation was superior to the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

METHODS

Obese patients undergoing diagnostic gastroscopy were randomly assigned to two different intervention groups: group CS (conscious sedation) or group DS (deep sedation). Group CS patients were managed by conscious sedation [Modified Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) at 4-5] protocol, and group DS patients were managed by deep sedation (MOAA/S at ≤ 2) protocol. Propofol and sufentanil (0.1 and 0.05 mg/kg) were, respectively, infused for sedation and analgesia in CS and DS protocols. The primary endpoints were to compare the incidence of SpO₂ values < 95% and < 90% of the patients between the two groups. The incidence of successful sedation, satisfaction scores of patients and endoscopist were assessed as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

115 obese patients (59 in group CS and 56 in group DS) were enrolled in this study. The incidences of SpO₂ < 95% and < 90% in group CS (42.4% and 6.8%) were significantly lower than those in group DS (69.6% and 19.6%, with P = 0.003 and 0.041, respectively). The incidence of successful sedation was similar between groups (86.4% vs 89.3%, P = 0.641). Patient satisfaction scores and endoscopist satisfaction scores were both similar between groups (P = 0.548 and 0.171).

CONCLUSION

Conscious sedation with propofol and sufentanil (0.1 mg/kg) reduced the incidence of hypoxic events without affecting gastroscopy procedure and satisfaction compared with the deep sedation for obese patients during diagnostic gastroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-1900024894; registration date, July 31, 2019. http://www.chictr.org.cn .