Procainamide in the induction and perpetuation of ventricular tachycardia in man

Role of abnormal repolarization in the mechanism of cardiac arrhythmia

In cardiac patients, life-threatening tachyarrhythmia is often precipitated by abnormal changes in ventricular repolarization and refractoriness. Repolarization abnormalities typically evolve as a consequence of impaired function of outward K⁺ currents in cardiac myocytes, which may be caused by genetic defects or result from various acquired pathophysiological conditions, including electrical remodelling in cardiac disease, ion channel modulation by clinically used pharmacological agents, and systemic electrolyte disorders seen in heart failure, such as hypokalaemia. Cardiac electrical instability attributed to abnormal repolarization relies on the complex interplay between a provocative arrhythmic trigger and vulnerable arrhythmic substrate, with a central role played by the excessive prolongation of ventricular action potential duration, impaired intracellular Ca²⁺ handling, and slowed impulse conduction. This review outlines the electrical activity of ventricular myocytes in normal conditions and cardiac disease, describes classical electrophysiological mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmia, and provides an update on repolarization-related surrogates currently used to assess arrhythmic propensity, including spatial dispersion of repolarization, activation-repolarization coupling, electrical restitution, TRIaD (triangulation, reverse use dependence, instability, and dispersion), and the electromechanical window. This is followed by a discussion of the mechanisms that account for the dependence of arrhythmic vulnerability on the location of the ventricular pacing site. Finally, the review clarifies the electrophysiological basis for cardiac arrhythmia produced by hypokalaemia, and gives insight into the clinical importance and pathophysiology of drug-induced arrhythmia, with particular focus on class Ia (quinidine, procainamide) and Ic (flecainide) Na⁺ channel blockers, and class III antiarrhythmic agents that block the delayed rectifier K⁺ channel (dofetilide).

Electrophysiologic mechanisms of adverse effects of class I antiarrhythmic drugs (cibenzoline, pilsicainide, disopyramide, procainamide) in induction of atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia

We evaluated the electrophysiological mechanisms of adverse effects of class I antiarrhythmic drugs (cibenzoline in seven patients, pilsicainide in two, and disopyramide in two, and procainamide in three) in the induction of orthodromic atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT). In 14 patients (10 males, 4 females; mean age 37 +/- 18 years) who had inducible AVRT despite the administration of class I drugs, electrophysiological effects of class I antiarrhythmic drugs were evaluated using programmed electrical stimulation techniques. In 4 out of 6 patients with a manifest accessory pathway, class I drugs induced unidirectional conduction block of the accessory pathway (antegrade conduction block associated with preserved retrograde conduction) and enhanced the induction of AVRT with atrial extrastimulation. In eight patients with a concealed accessory pathway, the outward or inward expansion of the tachycardia induction zone was observed in patients who had greater prolongation of the conduction time than the refractory period of the retrograde accessory pathway after class I drugs. During ventricular extrastimulation, the induction of bundle branch re-entry after class I drugs initiated the AVRT in patients with either manifest or concealed accessory pathways. We conclude that the adverse effects of class I drugs are mainly due to induction of unidirectional retrograde conduction of the manifest accessory pathway and the greater prolongation of the retrograde conduction time of the concealed accessory pathway than the refractory period, regardless of the sub-classification of class I drugs.

Comparative electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral procainamide in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias

Thirty-three patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias underwent electrophysiologic testing after intravenous and again after oral procainamide administration. Two groups were identified: group 1 included 15 patients with concordant serum procainamide concentrations with less than a 3 micrograms/ml difference after intravenous (mean 8.6 +/- 2.7) and oral (mean 8.8 +/- 2.7) procainamide administration, with mean N-acetylprocainamide concentrations of 1.0 +/- 0.6 and 6.2 +/- 2.8 micrograms/ml, respectively. Group 2 included 18 patients with discordant serum procainamide concentrations after intravenous (mean 9.5 +/- 5.9 micrograms/ml) and oral (mean 14.1 +/- 5.2 micrograms/ml) procainamide, with mean N-acetylprocainamide concentrations of 0.9 +/- 0.5 and 10.7 +/- 5.7 micrograms/ml, respectively. In group 1, response to programmed stimulation was the same after intravenous and oral procainamide administration, with no inducible ventricular arrhythmia in 5 of 15 patients. In group 2, 3 of 18 patients had no inducible arrhythmia after intravenous compared with 7 of 18 patients after oral procainamide administration. There was a different response to programmed stimulation after oral compared with intravenous procainamide in 6 of 18 patients in group 2 but in none of 15 patients in group 1 (p = 0.02). The effective procainamide concentration was greater than the ineffective concentration in five of the six patients with a discordant response, and the effective route of administration was oral in five of the six patients. The change in ventricular refractoriness in group 1 was similar after intravenous (28 +/- 23 ms) and oral (29 +/- 19 ms) procainamide, whereas in group 2, refractoriness was increased more after oral (33 +/- 21 ms) than intravenous (20 +/- 17 ms) procainamide administration and paralleled the difference in procainamide concentration.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)