DL and D sotalol decrease defibrillation energy requirements

The Arrhythmogenicity of Sotalol and its Role in Heart Failure: A Literature Review

ABSTRACT

According to the American Heart Association, approximately 6 million adults have been afflicted with heart failure in the United States in 2020 and are more likely to have sudden cardiac death accounting for approximately 50% of the cause of mortality. Sotalol is a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist with class III antiarrhythmic properties that has been mostly used for atrial fibrillation treatment and suppressing recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The use of sotalol in patients with left ventricular dysfunction is not recommended by the American College of Cardiology or American Heart Association because studies are inconclusive with conflicting results regarding safety. This article aims to review the mechanism of action of sotalol, the β-blocking effects on heart failure, and provide an overview of clinical trials on sotalol use and its effects in patients with heart failure. Small- and large-scale clinical trials have been controversial and inconclusive about the use of sotalol in heart failure. Sotalol has been shown to reduce defibrillation energy requirements and reduce shocks from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Torsades de Pointes is the most life-threatening arrhythmia that has been documented with sotalol use and occurs more commonly in women and heart failure patients. Thus far, mortality benefits have not been demonstrated with sotalol use and larger multicenter studies are required going forward.

The Selective Late Sodium Current Inhibitor Eleclazine, Unlike Amiodarone, Does Not Alter Defibrillation Threshold or Dominant Frequency of Ventricular Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

We examined the effects of the selective late INa inhibitor eleclazine on the 50% probability of successful defibrillation (DFT50) before and after administration of amiodarone to determine its suitability for use in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 20 anesthetized pigs, transvenous active-fixation cardiac defibrillation leads were fluoroscopically positioned into right ventricular apex through jugular vein. ICDs were implanted subcutaneously. Dominant frequency of ventricular fibrillation was analyzed by fast Fourier transform. The measurements were made before drug administration (control), and at 40 minutes after vehicle, eleclazine (2 mg/kg, i.v., bolus over 15 minutes), or subsequent/single amiodarone administration (10 mg/kg, i.v., bolus over 10 minutes). Eleclazine did not alter DFT50, dominant frequency, heart rate, or mean arterial pressure (MAP). Subsequent amiodarone increased DFT50 (P = 0.006), decreased dominant frequency (P = 0.022), and reduced heart rate (P = 0.031) with no change in MAP. Amiodarone alone increased DFT50 (P = 0.005; NS compared to following eleclazine) and decreased dominant frequency (P = 0.003; NS compared to following eleclazine).

CONCLUSION

Selective late INa inhibition with eleclazine does not alter DFT50 or dominant frequency of ventricular fibrillation when administered alone or in combination with amiodarone. Accordingly, eleclazine would not be anticipated to affect the margin of defibrillation safety in patients with ICDs.

Vernakalant selectively prolongs atrial refractoriness with no effect on ventricular refractoriness or defibrillation threshold in pigs

Vernakalant is a novel antiarrhythmic agent that has demonstrated clinical efficacy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Vernakalant blocks, to various degrees, cardiac sodium and potassium channels with a pattern that suggests atrial selectivity. We hypothesized, therefore, that vernakalant would affect atrial more than ventricular effective refractory period (ERP) and have little or no effect on ventricular defibrillation threshold (DFT). Atrial and ventricular ERP and ventricular DFT were determined before and after treatment with vernakalant or vehicle in 23 anesthetized male mixed-breed pigs. Vernakalant was infused at a rate designed to achieve stable plasma levels similar to those in human clinical trials. Atrial and ventricular ERP were determined by endocardial extrastimuli delivered to the right atria or right ventricle. Defibrillation was achieved using external biphasic shocks delivered through adhesive defibrillation patches placed on the thorax after 10 seconds of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation. The DFT was estimated using the Dixon "up-and-down" method. Vernakalant significantly increased atrial ERP compared with vehicle controls (34 ± 8 versus 9 ± 7 msec, respectively) without significantly affecting ventricular ERP or DFT. This is consistent with atrial selective actions and supports the conclusion that vernakalant does not alter the efficacy of electrical defibrillation.

Induction by direct current pulse versus 50-Hz pacing on ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation

BACKGROUND

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) induced by different modes of induction may have different characteristics and defibrillation thresholds. This study compares the cycle lengths and defibrillation of VF induced by direct current (DC) pulses vs 50 Hz.

METHOD

We compared induction by DC pulses and 50-Hz pacing in this single-centre observational study of 259 consecutive patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in 2007-2008. Patients with inadequate defibrillation safety margin (DSM), defined as unsuccessful defibrillation at 25 J, were identified.

RESULTS

Of the 259 patients, 132 underwent induction with DC pulses and 127 with 50-Hz pacing. DC pulses induced VF of shorter cycle lengths (207 ± 16 vs 231 ± 24 ms, p < 0.001) compared to 50-Hz pacing. There were 17 patients (6.6%) with inadequate DSM-13/132 (9.8%) with DC pulse vs 4/127 (3.1%) with 50-Hz pacing (p < 0.001). The induced VF cycle lengths were shorter in patients with inadequate DSM (186 ± 25 vs 221 ± 21 ms, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, only the induced VF cycle length (p = 0.002) was independently associated with inadequate DSM.

CONCLUSION

VF of shorter cycle lengths is independently associated with inadequate DSM. DC pulses are associated with greater proportion of patients with inadequate DSM as it induces VF of shorter cycle lengths compared to 50-Hz pacing.

Clinical study of the acute effects of intravenous nifekalant on the defibrillation threshold in patients with persistent and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Antiarrhythmic agents are considered to have significant effects on the defibrillation energy requirement, so this study investigated the effects of nifekalant on defibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-two patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) underwent electrical cardioversion via intracardiac electrode catheters prior to and after the intravenous administration of nifekalant. The success rate of the defibrillation and change in the defibrillation threshold using sequential incremental defibrillation energy deliveries was investigated. In addition, the parameters that could predict the beneficial effects of nifekalant were also assessed. Nifekalant significantly decreased the defibrillation energy requirement in 13 of the 42 cases, and nifekalant also converted AF to sinus rhythm with an identical energy to that of the last unsuccessful defibrillation in 21 of 42 cases. The success of defibrillation seemed to be dependent on significant prolongation of the intracardiac atrial electrogram intervals during AF by the nifekalant.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous nifekalant significantly improved the electrical defibrillation efficacy in patients with persistent AF that was resistant to defibrillation, without any serious adverse effects.

Rate of conversion and recurrence after sotalol treatment in patients with direct current-refractory atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

A number of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) will not have sinus rhythm (SR) restored by direct current (DC) cardioversion.

HYPOTHESIS

In patients with DC-refractory AF, oral pretreatment with sotalol increases the success rate at DC cardioversion.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with persistent AF, refractory at a first DC cardioversion, were prospectively included. A comparative group of patients with AF not refractory at DC cardioversion was studied. Oral sotalol treatment was started after unsuccessful DC cardioversion and given at least 7 days before renewed cardioversion. Four weeks after cardioversion, an electrocardiogram was performed.

RESULTS

In all, 53 patients were enrolled in the study. Forty-three (81%) in the sotalol group regained sinus rhythm (SR): 10 (19%) of these converted pharmacologically and 33 (62%) after a second DC cardioversion; SR was never restored in 10 patients (19%). After 4 weeks, SR was maintained in 29 patients (67%). The comparative group included 132 patients and differed significantly from the DC-refractory patients only with regard to weight. After 4 weeks, SR was maintained by 50 patients (37%) in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with persistent AF refractory to DC cardioversion, oral pretreatment with sotalol results in a high rate of SR restoration, either pharmacologically or by DC cardioversion. Maintenance of SR at 4 weeks is of sufficient clinical relevance to consider this treatment option in patients with AF refractory to DC cardioversion.

Randomized double-blind trial of sotalol versus lignocaine in out-of-hospital refractory cardiac arrest due to ventricular tachyarrhythmia

AIM

We aimed to compare the efficacy of sotalol versus lignocaine for the treatment of patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation refractory to > or = 4 defibrillatory shocks.

BACKGROUND

The outcome of patients in ventricular fibrillation refractory to > or = 4 defibrillatory shocks is poor. In a previous randomized trial, sotalol was superior to lignocaine for acute termination of ventricular tachycardia not causing loss of consciousness.

METHODS

Patients of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales treated by paramedics with continued ventricular fibrillation despite standard resuscitation and > or = 4 defibrillatory monophasic shocks were eligible. Drug doses were sotalol 100 mg or lignocaine 100 mg, given as i.v. boluses. A further 2 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was given and then defibrillation was repeated twice. If this failed, half the initial dose of the trial drug was repeated and a further > or = 2 shocks were given.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomized to sotalol and 69 randomized to lignocaine. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the clinical characteristics of the patients or in the number of shocks received. Outcomes in the sotalol and lignocaine groups were survival to hospital admission in 7 (12%) and 16 (23%), respectively (P = 0.09), and survival to hospital discharge in 2 (3%) and 5 (7%), respectively (P = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Sotalol is not superior to lignocaine for treatment of ventricular fibrillation refractory to multiple shocks. The overall outcome of this group of patients is poor regardless of the pharmacological intervention (lignocaine or sotalol).

Postoperative atrial fibrillation: new directions in prevention and treatment

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common and vexing complication of cardiac surgeries in adults. The consequences of this dysrhythmia are numerous and include hemodynamic instability, increased risk for embolic stroke, increased length of hospital stay, increased cost of hospitalization, significant resource utilization, and decreased long-term survival. While some progress has been made in prevention of POAF, the multiple mechanisms involved in its genesis are yet to be elucidated. This article reviews our current understanding of these mechanisms, predictors of POAF, drug therapy for prevention and treatment, and new uses for pacing and internal cardioversion for the prevention and treatment of POAF.

Interactions of antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable devices in controlling ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have proven highly successful in the treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Despite the efficacy of the ICD in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, antiarrhythmic drugs remain an important adjunct to ICD therapy. The use of antiarrhythmic drug therapy in combination with the ICD is synergistic in terms of beneficial effects, but also has the potential for some adverse interactions. Knowledge and recognition of these potential interactions is important for any physician managing patients with an ICD. This review summarizes the benefits and adverse effects of ICD in combination with antiarrhythmic drug therapy, and provides guidelines to ensure safe application of this hybrid therapy.

Terikalant and barium decrease the area of vulnerability to ventricular fibrillation induction by T-wave shocks

The area of vulnerability (AOV) to ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction by high-voltage shocks has been proposed as a measure of vulnerability to VF. Biphasic shocks spanning the T wave and ranging between 50 V and the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) to VF were delivered before and after terikalant (1 mg/kg) and barium (1.1 mg/kg load followed by 0.05-0.10 mg/kg/min maintenance) or vehicle in dogs. The AOV decreased by 34% and 28% (p < 0.01) after terikalant and barium (n = 8 dogs each), respectively. Mean ULV, defibrillation threshold (DFT), and ventricular vulnerability period (VVP) decreased by 16%, 23%, and 31% (p < 0.01), respectively, after terikalant, and by 25%, 17% (p < 0.01), and 13% (p = 0.08), respectively, after barium. Vehicle (n = 14) did not significantly alter any of these variables. The ULV was correlated with the DFT before and after terikalant (r = 0.78, p < 0.01) and barium (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Potassium channel blockers of the current reduce the ability to induce VF; this effect may be related to the anti-fibrillatory action of class III anti-arrhythmic drugs and their ability to decrease DFT.

Combination IK1 and IKr channel blockade: no additive lowering of the defibrillation threshold

Selective blockade of the inward rectifier potassium channel I(K1) by barium, or of the rapidly activating delayed rectifier potassium channel I(Kr) by D,L-sotalol, prolongs repolarization and reduces the defibrillation threshold (DFT). This study hypothesized that combination I(K1) and I(Kr) channel block would produce concentration-dependent additive effects on DFT and ventricular refractoriness. A range of barium and D,L-sotalol concentrations, alone and in combination, were examined with respect to DFT, ventricular effective refractory period (VERP), and ventricular fibrillation cycle length (VFCL) in 133 Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts. Barium produced a concentration-dependent reduction of DFT (-49+/-4%), with concentration-dependent increases in VERP (26+/-6%) and VFCL (42+/-18%). D,L-Sotalol produced a concentration-dependent lowering of DFT (-53+/-6%) with a concentration-dependent increase in VFCL (34+/-8%) but not VERP. Low (1.6 microM), intermediate (3.1 microM), and high (12.5 microM) barium concentrations combined with varying D,L-sotalol concentrations produced equal or smaller decreases in DFT compared with corresponding doses of barium or D,L-sotalol alone. Except at the lowest concentrations of barium (1.6 and 3.1 microM) (p < 0.05), there was no significant additive interaction between barium and D,L-sotalol on VERP or VFCL. Combination I(K1) and I(Kr) channel block by barium and D,L-sotalol does not produce additive reduction of DFT.

Drug choices in the treatment of atrial fibrillation

When considering therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF), the dominant issues are rate control, anticoagulation, rhythm control, and treatment of any underlying disorder. Drug choices for rate control include beta-blockers, verapamil and diltiazem, and digitalis as first-line agents, with consideration of other sympatholytics, amiodarone, or nonpharmacologic approaches in resistant cases. Anticoagulation may be accomplished with aspirin or warfarin, with the latter preferred in all older or high-risk patients. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy may be used (1) to produce cardioversion (most effective with ibutilide or class IC agents in recent onset AF); (2) to facilitate electrical conversion (class III agents); (3) to prevent early reversion after cardioversion; (4) to maintain sinus rhythm during chronic therapy; and/or (5) to facilitate conversion of fibrillation to flutter, which may then be amenable to termination or prevention with antitachypacing or ablative techniques. Antiarrhythmic drug selection for AF is guided by efficacy considerations (most drugs are similar), by convenience, cost, and discontinuation considerations; and, most importantly, by safety considerations. When possible, agents with serious organ toxicity potential and proarrhythmic risk should be avoided as first-line choices. In structurally normal hearts, class IC antiarrhythmic drugs are least proarrhythmic and least organ toxic (when considered together). In normal hearts, sotalol, dofetilide, and potentially azimilide also appear to have attractive profiles. Amiodarone has low proarrhythmic risk but can produce bradyarrhythmias and toxicity. In hypertrophied hearts, the risk of torsade de pointes with class III/IA agents is enhanced, whereas in ischemia or conditions with impaired cell contact, whether functionally (as by ischemia) or anatomically (as by fibrosis, infiltration, etc), proarrhythmic risk with class I antiarrhythmic drugs (sustained ventricular fibrillation/flutter) is greatly increased. The class I drugs should be avoided in these circumstances. Additional issues to consider are where to initiate therapy (in- or outpatient), what follow-up protocols to use, and whether to limit therapy to proprietary drugs or to allow generic formulation substitution. Each of these considerations is detailed in this article.

Intravenous sotalol decreases transthoracic cardioversion energy requirement for chronic atrial fibrillation in humans: assessment of the electrophysiological effects by biatrial basket electrodes

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to assess the effects of sotalol on the transthoracic cardioversion energy requirement for chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) and on the atrial electrograms during AF recorded by two basket electrodes.

BACKGROUND

The effects of sotalol infusion on transthoracic electrical cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation in humans have not been well investigated.

METHODS

We included 18 patients with persistent AF for more than three months. Atrial electrograms were recorded by two basket electrodes positioned in each atrium respectively. Transthoracic cardioversion was performed before and after sotalol 1.5 mg/kg i.v. infusion.

RESULTS

In the 14 patients whose AF could be terminated by cardioversion before sotalol infusion, the atrial defibrillation energy was significantly reduced after sotalol infusion (236 +/- 74 jules [J] vs. 186 +/- 77 J; p < 0.01). Atrial fibrillation was refractory to cardioversion in four patients at baseline and was converted to sinus rhythm by cardioversion after sotalol infusion in two of them. We further divided the patients into two groups. Group A consisted of 10 patients in whom the energy requirement was decreased by sotalol while group B consisted of eight patients in whom the energy requirement was not decreased. The mean A-A (atrial local electrogram) intervals during AF were significantly increased after sotalol infusion in both groups, but the increment of A-A interval was significantly larger in group A than it was in group B patients (36 +/- 13 ms vs. 22 +/- 8 ms for the right atrium; 19 +/- 7 ms vs. 9 +/- 7 ms for the left atrium; both p < 0.05). The spatial and temporal dispersions of A-A intervals were not significantly changed after sotalol infusion in both atria in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sotalol decreases the atrial defibrillation energy requirement by increasing atrial refractoriness but not by decreasing the dispersion of refractoriness.

Drug therapy of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Is there still a role?

This article provides a review of the risks faced by patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the absence of a reversible or transient cause so that the goals of therapy can be clearly defined. The therapeutic approaches that have been proposed to achieve these goals are outlined and evidence comparing these various approaches to therapy is then summarized in order to propose an algorithm for the optimal use of antiarrhythmic drug therapies as primary therapy for selected VT/VF patients. Options for the ancillary uses of antiarrhythmic drug therapies in ICD patients are considered.

Combining antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable devices therapy: benefits and outcome

At least 50% of patients who received an ICD have been treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). The potential indications for combining antiarrhythmic drugs and ICD are generally the following: reduction of the number of episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and therefore of the number of shocks, improving patient's quality of life and extending the battery life of the ICD, prevention of supraventricular arrhythmias and/or control of their rate, lengthening of the tachycardia cycle length to allow ventricular tachycardia conversion by antitachycardia pacing and reduction of the number of episodes of syncope. Although previous papers reported conflicting results about pharmacologic therapy in reducing the frequency of iCD shocks, some recent randomized prospective studies showed the efficacy of pharmacologic therapy in reducing the frequency of ICD shocks. The use of antiarrhythmic drugs can have also adverse effect: an increase in the defibrillation threshold, an increase in the pacing threshold and an increase in the VT cycle length leading to detection failure. We have also to consider that some advantages derived from antiarrhythmic drugs can be reached by the new devices with atrial sensing and pacing and/or the possibility of atrial defibrillation or by using catheter ablation as adjunctive therapy to ICD. For these reasons, the concomitant use of antiarrhythmic drugs and ICD should be evaluated in each patient in relation to specific clinical and electrophysiologic features including: the frequency, the rate and the clinical presentation of the ventricular arrhythmia, the effect of the selected drug on the defibrillation threshold, the defibrillation threshold at the implant, the effect of the selected drug on the ventricular function and the likelihood of proarrhythmic events.

Evaluation of antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in patients with an ICD: unlimited potential or replete with complexity and problems?

There are a number of novel ways in which implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) endpoints can be used in clinical trials to evaluate antiarrhythmic drugs. The advances in ICD technology (storage, retrieval, and accurate interpretation of ICD electrograms) expand the potential to include the use of an ICD endpoint as a clinical surrogate for sudden death. The ICD also provides the necessary safety net to test new drugs. The frequent need for antiarrhythmic drugs in patients already fitted with an ICD (e.g., for atrial fibrillation) necessitates knowledge of the drugs' effect on defibrillator threshold. There are interpretative problems and challenges associated with all types of ICD trials. A particular difficult issue is the degree to which the results of data on antiarrhythmic drug efficacy and safety acquired in the context of an ICD endpoint trial might be extrapolated to patient populations in which the device is not used. These and other challenging issues are discussed, with the goal of enhancing the design and interpretation of clinical trials featuring ICD endpoints.

Interactions of antiarrhythmic drugs with implantable defibrillator therapy for atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have proven highly successful in the treatment of recurrent ventricular and atrial arrhythmias. Despite their high efficacy in terminating arrhythmias, concomitant therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs in ICD recipients remains common. Antiarrhythmic drugs are employed in an attempt to to limit patient exposure to high-energy shocks, primarily by reducing the number of arrhythmia reccurrences, suppressing coexisting arrhythmias, affecting rate and organization of tachycardias, and increasing efficacy of painless pacing therapies. Data regarding interaction of antiarrhythmic drugs with ICDs are incomplete and mostly based on animal models; however, it is clear that antiarrhythmic drugs affect all aspects of function of devices such as defibrillation threshold, pacing threshold, and sensing of both atrial and and ventricular arrhythmias. Because significant change in any of these functions may result in a nonfunctional device, and magnitude of drug effect in an individual patient is unpredictable, careful assessment of ICD function after an institution of therapy with antiarrhythmic drugs is mandatory.

Azimilide decreases defibrillation voltage requirements and increases spatial organization during ventricular fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Drugs with class III antiarrhythmic properties generally decrease defibrillation threshold (DFT). However, the concentration effect relation for this effect and drug effects on ventricular fibrillation (VF) itself are not well understood. The objectives of this study were to determine the effect of azimilide (NE-10064), a new class III agent, on DFT, and on spatial organization during VF.

METHODS

Defibrillation patch electrodes were sutured to the right and left ventricular epicardium in 12 open-chest anesthetized dogs. The delayed up-down algorithm was used to measure DFT and to estimate the shock strength (voltage) with a 50% probability of successful defibrillation (V50). The magnitude squared coherence (MSC), which measures the spatial relation in the frequency domain, was measured during VF between two unipolar epicardial electrodes 3 mm apart. The V50, MSC, electrophysiologic parameters, and plasma concentrations were determined before and after four cumulative i.v. doses of azimilide (2, 7, 17, and 30 mg/kg).

RESULTS

Azimilide elicited a dose dependent reduction of V50 and increase in MSC. Compared with baseline, azimilide lowered mean V50 by 2 +/- 9%, 10 +/- 18%, 11 +/- 14% and 19 +/- 5%, and increased MSC by 17 +/- 20%, 32 +/- 31%, 20 +/- 44% and 27 +/- 20% (p < 0.05 for dose effect) at 2, 7, 17 and 30 mg/kg, respectively. Mean increases in monophasic action potential duration at 90% repolarization (3-11%), ventricular effective refractory period (6-13%) at 400 msec paced cycle length, and VF cycle length (5-37%) (p < 0.01 for dose effect) were observed with the 4 increasing doses of azimilide, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Azimilide significantly decreases DFT and increases coherence in VF in a dose dependent manner.

The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to prospectively investigate the influence of ventricular fibrillation (VF) durations of 5, 10 and 20 s on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

BACKGROUND

Although the DFT using monophasic waveforms has been shown to increase with VF duration in humans, the effect of VF duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans is not known.

METHODS

Thirty patients undergoing primary ICD implantation or pulse generator replacement were randomly assigned to have the DFT determined using biphasic shocks at two durations of VF each (5 and 10 s, 10 and 20 s or 5 and 20 s).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean DFT comparing VF durations of 5 s (9.5+/-6.0 J) and 10 s (10.8+/-7.0 J) (p=0.4). The mean DFT significantly increased from 10.9+/-6.1 J at 10 s of VF to 12.6+/-5.6 J (p=0.03) at 20 s of VF, and from 7.0+/-3.5 J at 5 s of VF to 10.5+/-6.3 J (p=0.04) at 20 s of VF. An increase in the DFT was observed in 14 patients as VF duration increased. There were no clinical characteristics that differentiated patients with and without an increase in the DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation efficacy decreases with increasing VF duration using biphasic waveforms in humans. Ventricular fibrillation durations greater than 10 s may negatively affect the effectiveness of ICD therapy.

Influence of anaesthesia on defibrillation threshold

Internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation can be performed under local or general anaesthesia. Whether the technique of general anaesthesia influences the defibrillation threshold remains a matter of debate. We therefore compared, in a prospective, randomised clinical study, the effect of intravenous anaesthesia using propofol with inhalational anaesthesia using isoflurane on the defibrillation threshold in 68 patients scheduled for transvenous single-lead internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Defibrillation threshold was measured at implantation and at device testing 1 week and 1 month after implantation. Patients acted as their own controls. Neither the anaesthetic technique nor the duration of anaesthesia was associated with significant changes in the defibrillation threshold. We conclude that in this group of high-risk patients, both types of anaesthesia are acceptable techniques for internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and testing.

Interactions between implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and class III agents

Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can successfully terminate ventricular arrhythmias, antiarrhythmic drugs are often required to prevent recurrent events. Class III antiarrhythmic agents have emerged as the safest, most effective, and widely used agents in the 40-70% of ICD patients who require concomitant antiarrhythmic medication. Antiarrhythmic agents can influence the effectiveness of ICDs to terminate arrhythmias through their effect on defibrillation threshold. All class III agents share the ability to prolong ventricular refractoriness and those with "pure" class III activity consistently decrease defibrillation threshold in the normal canine heart model. Sotalol, amiodarone, and bretylium all have other Vaughan Williams class actions that influence their respective effects on defibrillation threshold. Sotalol has been associated with a decrease in defibrillation threshold in both animal and in clinical studies, whereas amiodarone has been associated with variable effects in animal models and an increase in defibrillation threshold in clinical studies. Additionally, antiarrhythmic agents may prolong ventricular tachycardia (VT) cycle length, which may affect the ability to pace terminate or cardiovert VT. Amiodarone has a moderate slowing effect on the VT cycle length. Finally, class III drugs also have proarrhythmic potential that may affect the defibrillator's function. Sotalol can be associated with dose-related torsade de pointes, whereas amiodarone may slow the VT cycle length below the tachycardia detection rate cutoff. In conclusion, class III pharmacotherapy can be safely administered in conjunction with ICD therapy as long as the interaction between these therapeutic modalities is appreciated.

Importance of beta blockade in the therapy of serious ventricular arrhythmias

Beta blockers have traditionally been considered relatively poor antiarrhythmic agents for patients with ventricular arrhythmias. This view is based on the observations that beta blockers are less effective in suppressing spontaneous ventricular ectopy or inducible ventricular arrhythmias than are the class I and class III agents. However, there are convincing data that beta blockers can have a clinically important antiarrhythmic effect and prevent arrhythmic and sudden death. Beta blockers have multiple potential effects that can contribute to a therapeutic antiarrhythmic action, including an antiadrenergic/vagomimetic effect, a decrease in ventricular fibrillation threshold, and prevention of a catecholamine reversal of concomitant class I/III antiarrhythmic drug effects. Postinfarction trials, recent congestive heart failure studies, and observations in patients who are at risk for sustained ventricular arrhythmias all suggest a potent antiarrhythmic effect of beta blockade.

Influence of polarity reversal on defibrillation success with biphasic shocks and a transvenous/subcutaneous defibrillator system in a porcine animal model

Clinical studies show that polarity reversal affects defibrillation success in transvenous monophasic defibrillators. Current devices use biphasic shocks for defibrillation. We investigated in a porcine animal model whether polarity reversal influences defibrillation success with biphasic shocks. In nine anesthetized, ventilated pigs, the defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks (14.3 ms and 10.8 ms pulse duration) with "initial polarity" (IP, distal electrode = cathode) and "reversed polarity" (RP, distal electrode = anode) delivered via a transvenous/subcutaneous lead system was compared. Voltage and current of each defibrillating pulse were recorded on an oscilloscope and impedance calculated as voltage divided by current. Cumulative defibrillation success was significantly higher for RP than for IP for both pulse durations (55% vs 44%, P = 0.019) for 14.3 ms (57% vs 45%, P < 0.05) and insignificantly higher for 10.8 ms (52% vs 42%, P = ns). Impedance was significantly lower with RP at the trailing edge of pulse 1 (IP: 44 +/- 8.4 vs RP: 37 +/- 9.3 with 14.3 ms, P < 0.001 and IP: 44 +/- 6.2 vs RP: 41 +/- 7.6 omega with 10.8 ms, P < 0.001) and the leading edge of pulse 2 (IP: 37 +/- 5 vs RP: 35 +/- 4.2 omega with 14.3 ms, P = 0.05 and IP: 37.5 +/- 3.7 vs RP: 36 +/- 5 omega with 10.8 ms, P = 0.02). In conclusion, in this animal model, internal defibrillation using the distal coil as anode results in higher defibrillation efficacy than using the distal coil as cathode. Calculated impedances show different courses throughout the shock pulses suggesting differences in current flow during the shock.

Effects of long-term amiodarone treatment on ventricular-fibrillation vulnerability and defibrillation efficacy in response to monophasic and biphasic shocks

Antiarrhythmic drugs, most notably amiodarone, are often used to combat life-threatening tachyarrhythmias simultaneous with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. However, the effects of long-term amiodarone treatment on ventricular fibrillation (VF) vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold (DFT) remain incompletely understood. VF vulnerability and the DFF for monophasic and biphasic shocks were studied in 10 isolated perfused hearts of rabbits treated over the long term with amiodarone (50 mg/kg/day orally for 28 days) before the experiment. The results were compared with those of a control group (n = 10). Monophasic action potentials were recorded from 10 sites simultaneously to determine ventricular activation and repolarization. Myocardial tissue concentrations were 17.1 +/- 14.8 microg/g for amiodarone and 4.6 +/- 4.4 microg/g for desethylamiodarone. Amiodarone treatment prolonged action-potential duration by 12.9 ms (p = 0.025) and ventricular repolarization by 16.5 ms (p = 0.03) without changing ventricular activation and dispersion of repolarization. Amiodarone treatment caused a rightward shift of the vulnerable window for monophasic and biphasic shocks by 13-17 ms (p < 0.05). The width of the vulnerable window, the upper (ULV) and lower (LLV) limits of VF vulnerability, and the DFT remained unchanged. The fact that ULV and DFT remained unchanged suggests that the ULV still may be valid surrogate for the DFT during long-term amiodarone therapy.

Pinacidil's Effects on Defibrillation Outcomes: Role of Increased Potassium Conductance Via the K(ATP) Channel

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that the inhibition of potassium ion conductance decreases defibrillation threshold. We postulated that if potassium conductance is a primary mechanism affecting defibrillation threshold values, then increasing potassium ion conductance will increase defibrillation values. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the ATP-dependent potassium (K(ATP)) channel opener pinacidil would increase defibrillation threshold values. The second objective was to prove that the observed changes were due to potassium conductance by using the K(ATP) inhibitor, glyburide, to reverse the electrophysiologic actions of pinacidil. The third objective was to determine if the electrophysiology action sof pinacidil correlate with changes in defibrillation threshold value. METHODS AND RESULTS: Domestic farm swine (n = 14) were anesthetized and intubated. Subsequently, they were instrumented with monophasic action potential catheters and epicardial defibrillation patches. Defibrillation threshold values, action potential duration, effective refractory period, and ventricular fibrillation cycle length were determined at baseline and during treatment phase 1 and treatment phase 2. Pigs were randomized into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 6) received D(5)W in treatment phase one followed by D(5)W in treatment phase 2 and group 2 (n = 8) received pinacidil in treatment phase one followed by the addition of glyburide in treatment phase two. DFT(ED50) did not change at baseline, treatment phase one or treatment phase two for group 1 (10.5 +/- 2, 11.1 +/- 1.7, 10.5 +/- 1.0 J) or for group 2 (10.1 +/- 2.2, 11.4 +/- 4.2, 11.4 +/- 3.0 J). Electrophysiologic parameters )QRS, effective refractory period, action potential duration(90), and ventricular fibrillation cycle length) were not significantly changed from baseline in group 1. In contrast, effective refractory period, action potential duration(90), and ventricular fibrillation cycle length significantly decreased at all recorded sites after the administration of pinacidil in group 2 (range of 7-13%, 6-9%, and 12-17%, respectively). However, pinacidil did not change the basal level of dispersion in effective refractory period, action potential duration, and ventricular fibrillation cycle length during paced rhythm or ventricular fibrillation. Glyburide reversed pinacidil's electrophysiologic actions. CONCLUSIONS: Pinacidil does not alter defibrillation threshold, but it reduces effective refractory period, action potential duration, and ventricular fibrillation cycle length and does not increase electrical heterogeneity. Therefore, changes in potassium channel conductance as well as shortening repolarization are unlikely primary mechanisms for elevating defibrillation threshold.

ICD-antiarrhythmic drug and ICD-pacemaker interactions

Antiarrhythmic drugs and separate bradycardia pacing systems are prescribed commonly in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on ICD function and adverse interactions between ICDs and pacemakers have been documented. The effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients has not been well assessed. Most studies have been performed in animal models in which cardiac function was normal and drug doses were supraphysiologic. In addition, most studies have utilized monophasic defibrillation shock waveforms and epicardial lead systems. Despite the lack of clinical data applicable to current defibrillation systems, it appears that chronic amiodarone administration causes a significant DFT increase. In addition, antiarrhythmic drugs can influence antitachycardia pacing and tachycardia sensing. Defibrillation shocks can cause transient failure of pacemaker sensing and pacing, and cause spurious pacemaker reprogramming. Pacemaker function can result in ICD oversensing, leading to inappropriate therapy, or cause ICD undersensing, potentially resulting in failure to deliver therapy during ventricular fibrillation. The susceptibility of an ICD to undersensing appears related to the amplitude of the pacing stimulus artifact recorded by the ICD rate-sensing circuit and to the characteristics of the fibrillation electrogram. Preliminary data suggest that undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by current ICDs is an unlikely event.

Hypertonic saline does not reverse the sodium channel blocking actions of lidocaine: evidence from electrophysiologic and defibrillation studies

Studies have shown that increasing extracellular sodium concentration can partially reverse sodium channel blockade. However, there is conflicting in vitro evidence in this regard for lidocaine. The effects of lidocaine on cardiac electrophysiology and defibrillation were studied in a basal and hypernatremic state to determine reversibility of sodium channel blockade. Electrophysiologic studies measured right ventricular effective refractory period at 350 ms pacing cycle length and QRS interval, JT interval, and monophasic action potential duration during sinus rhythm and right ventricular pacing (350 ms cycle length) in 14 pentobarbital-anesthetized swine (25-30 kg). Defibrillation threshold (DFT) was measured by quantitating successful conversion of sustained ventricular fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm. Each pig was randomly assigned to a treatment group with three study phases; group 1 = baseline, lidocaine (20 mg/kg/h), and lidocaine plus placebo (D5W; n = 7); and group 2 = baseline, lidocaine, and lidocaine plus hypertonic saline (2-3 mM/kg/h; n = 7). In groups 1 and 2, lidocaine infused alone significantly (p < 0.01) increased DFT values from baseline (9.8 +/- 3.9 to 15.7 +/- 5.8 J and 8.9 +/- 2.9 to 14.7 +/- 5.4 J, respectively) and increased QRS duration from baseline during right ventricular pacing (89 +/- 6 to 109 +/- 10 ms; p < 0.01; and 87 +/- 6 to 103 +/- 12 ms; p < 0.01). Lidocaine alone reduced right ventricular action potential duration (APD) in groups 1 and 2 (214 +/- 18 to 206 +/- 20 ms; p < 0.10; and 228 +/- 8 to 212 +/- 8 ms; p < 0.05), respectively, and it reduced paced JT interval in both groups (194 +/- 20 to 184 +/- 18 ms; p < 0.10; and 200 +/- 12 to 183 +/- 16 ms; p < 0.05), respectively. When hypertonic saline was added to lidocaine, DFT and QRS duration values were unaffected (14.7 +/- 5.4 to 16.1 +/- 3.7 J and 103 +/- 12 to 100 +/- 11 ms, respectively). However, APD and JT intervals returned to basal values when hypertonic saline was added to lidocaine (212 +/- 8 to 225 +/- 13; p < 0.05; and 183 +/- 16 to 192 +/- 18; p < 0.05, respectively). When D5W was added in the control group, no changes occurred in DFT or electrophysiologic values. Lidocaine slowed ventricular conduction velocity and reduced APD. The administration of hypertonic saline to increase extracellular sodium concentrations failed to reverse the effect of lidocaine on conduction-velocity slowing or elevated DFT values. Hypertonic saline did reverse the effects of lidocaine on repolarization parameters. These data suggest that shortening of repolarization is not a mechanism by which lidocaine makes it more difficult to defibrillate the heart.

Circadian variation in defibrillation energy requirements

BACKGROUND

Reports have demonstrated a circadian variation in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. We tested the hypothesis that a similar circadian variation exists for defibrillation energy requirements in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed the time of defibrillation threshold (DFT) measurements in 134 patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) who underwent 345 DFT measurements. The DFT was determined in 130 patients at implantation, in 121 at a 2 months, and in 94 at 6 months. All patients had nonthoracotomy systems. The morning DFT (8 AM to 12 noon) was 15.1 +/- 1.2 J compared with 13.1 +/- 0.9 J in the midafternoon (12 noon to 4 PM) and 13.0 +/- 0.7 J in the late afternoon (4 to 8 PM), P < .02. In a separate group of 930 patients implanted with an ICD system with date and time stamps for each therapy, we reviewed 1238 episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmias treated with shock therapy. To corroborate the hypothesis that energy requirements for arrhythmia termination vary during the course of the day, we plotted the failed first shock frequency for all episodes per hour. There was a significant peak in failed first shocks in the morning compared with other time intervals (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a morning peak in DFT and a corresponding morning peak in failed first shock frequency. This morning peak resembles the peaks seen in other cardiac events, specifically sudden cardiac death. These findings have important implications for appropriate ICD function, particularly in patients with marginal DFTs.

d-Sotalol decreases defibrillation energy requirements in humans: a novel indication for drug therapy

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the effect of d-sotalol on defibrillation voltage and energy requirements in patients undergoing automatic defibrillator implantation. Drugs that primarily prolong cardiac refractoriness generally decrease the energy requirements for defibrillation in animal models. Despite the widespread use of antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators, the effect of such drugs on defibrillation energy requirements in humans has not been well studied. Sotalol (in the d,l racemic form) is an antiarrhythmic with beta-blocking and cardiac refractoriness prolonging effects. The d-isomer of sotalol is largely devoid of beta-blocking effects; both forms decrease defibrillation energy requirements in animals. We hypothesized that d-sotalol would decrease defibrillation voltage and energy requirements in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifteen patients undergoing implanted cardioverter defibrillator implantation were studied before and 20 minutes after d-sotalol infusion (2 mg/kg IV in 15 min, followed by 1 mg/kg per hour). The estimated energy (E50) and voltage (V50) for 50% success in defibrillation (estimated from two successive defibrillation "threshold" measurements), ventricular effective refractory period, monophasic action potential duration, and mean cycle length of ventricular fibrillation were measured, along with heart rate, blood pressure, and plasma concentration of d-sotalol. There was a significant decrease in defibrillation energy (E50 = 12.4 +/- 5.0 J before and 8.4 +/- 4.0 J after d-sotalol, P < 0.003) and voltage (V50 = 440 +/- 77 V before and 354 +/- 93 V after d-sotalol, P < 0.001). Consistent with the Class III effect of d-sotalol, ventricular effective refractory period increased from 284 +/- 21 to 330 +/- 24 msec (P < 0.001), and action potential duration was prolonged from 296 +/- 28 to 340 +/- 22 msec (P < 0.001). Following d-sotalol, there was a tendency for induced tachyarrhythmia to self-terminate (23/102 episodes before vs 74/150 after sotalol, P < 0.001), and ventricular fibrillation cycle length was increased from 216 +/- 20 msec before to 274 +/- 23 msec (P < 0.001) after d-sotalol, despite the persistence of a rapid, disorganized rhythm of the surface ECG. No patient suffered adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

d-Sotalol lowers defibrillation energy by a mean 32% +/- 27% at concentrations producing a 16% +/- 7% increase in ventricular effective refractory period. Along with its other antiarrhythmic effects, d-sotalol may increase the safety margin for defibrillation or allow lower programmed energies in patients with implanted defibrillators.

Evolving role of sotalol in the management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias

Sotalol is a unique compound with several potential antiarrhythmic mechanisms, including beta blockade (class II activity), action potential duration prolongation (class III activity), and possibly reduction of QT dispersion. In recent years, trials such as the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) and the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial reported disappointing results with the use of class I agents in the management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with coronary artery disease. These results have led to increased interest in class III antiarrhythmic agents, including sotalol. Sotalol is effective in suppressing ventricular premature complexes as well as nonsustained and sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The interaction between sotalol and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is generally favorable. As is the case with other antiarrhythmic drugs, there is no placebo-controlled trial assessing the effect of sotalol on mortality. It is not known if sotalol is more effective than placebo, conventional beta blockade, amiodarone, or ICDs in reducing mortality from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. In addition, the optimal method of selecting patients for sotalol therapy has yet to be determined. The safety profile of sotalol has been well established in > 3,000 patients worldwide. Proarrhythmia occurs in approximately 4% of patients, and torsades de pointes occurs in approximately 2.5%. The majority of episodes of torsades de pointes occurs within 3 days of commencing sotalol therapy, and the risk of torsades de pointes increases sharply at dosages > 320 mg daily. It is recommended that initiation of sotalol therapy or dosage increases be performed in a monitored setting. Overall, only 1% of patients enrolled in clinical trials of sotalol discontinued therapy as a result of drug-related congestive heart failure. However, these trials have excluded patients with poor left ventricular systolic function and/or overt heart failure. The optimal management of these patients, who are at greatest risk of sudden cardiac death, and of patients with substrates other than coronary artery disease remains to be elucidated.

Interactions between pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic antiarrhythmic therapy

Whether patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias should be treated first with antiarrhythmic drugs or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not known. Many patients are ultimately treated with both an antiarrhythmic drug and on ICD. Early studies reported that 40-70% of patients who received an ICD were ultimately treated with an antiarrhythmic drug, although fewer patients are now being treated with both modalities. The beneficial interactions between antiarrhythmic drugs and an ICD are slowing of ventricular tachycardia, which yields improved hemodynamic tolerance; improved antitachycardia pacing and low energy cardioversion success; lowering of antiarrhythmic drug doses, which reduces the risk of side effects; limiting the number of arrhythmia episodes, which minimizes patients discomfort and prolongs ICD battery life; and preventing or slowing supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, which reduces the number of inappropriate shocks from the ICD. The disadvantages of combining pharmacologic therapy and the use of an ICD are the cost and side effects of both therapies. Adverse interactions between an ICD and antiarrhythmic drugs include slowed ventricular tachycardia, which may lead to failure to detect the arrhythmia; increased defibrillation and pacing thresholds; worsened hemodynamic tolerance of ventricular tachycardia; lengthened PR, QRS, or QT intervals causing multiple counting; and decreased size of the intracardiac electrogram, leading to failure to detect the ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Caution must be used when combining pharmacologic therapy with an ICD. Repeat electrophysiologic testing is frequently necessary after the initiation of antiarrhythmic drug therapy in a patient with an ICD to ensure successful therapy with the ICD.

Effect of parenteral d-sotalol on transvenous atrial defibrillation threshold in a canine model of atrial fibrillation

In an effort to reduce energy requirements for atrial defibrillation to a level low enough to perform painless electrical cardioversion with an implantable atrial defibrillator, we tested the hypothesis that drug therapy with the class III agent d-sotalol, when used concurrently with a low-energy shock, reduces atrial defibrillation threshold. In a nonthoracotomy canine model of atrial fibrillation, intracardiac shocks were delivered between the distal coronary sinus and the mid-right atrium. Based on a step-up energy delivery protocol the atrial defibrillation threshold was defined as the least amount of energy that resulted in a >10% and <90% rate of successful defibrillation. At a dose associated with class III antiarrhythmic effects (5 mg/kg), d-sotalol significantly reduced atrial defibrillation threshold from 1.72 +/- 1.12 J to 0.59 +/- 0.60 J (p < 0.01). These results support the feasibility of using antiarrhythmic drug therapy with d-sotalol to minimize energy requirements for intracardiac electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Mechanism of antiarrhythmic drug-induced changes in defibrillation threshold: role of potassium and sodium channel conductance

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine which ion current predominantly affects defibrillation outcomes by using specific pharmacologic probes (lidocaine [a sodium channel blocking agent] and cesium [an outward potassium channel blocking agent]) in 26 swine.

BACKGROUND

The effect of a drug on sodium or potassium channel conductance, or both, may affect defibrillation threshold values. However, it is unknown which ion channel predominates.

METHODS

Each pig was randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with two treatment phases: group 1 = placebo (D5W) in treatment phase I followed by placebo plus cesium in treatment phase II (n = 6); group 2 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus placebo (n = 7); group 3 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus cesium (n = 7); group 4 = placebo followed by placebo plus placebo (n = 6). Defibrillation threshold values and electrocardiographic measurements were obtained at baseline and at treatment phases I and II.

RESULTS

Lidocaine increased defibrillation threshold values from baseline by 71% in group 2 (p = 0.02) and by 92% in group 3 (p < 0.01). There were no changes in defibrillation threshold values from baseline to D5W in groups 1 and 4. When D5W was added to lidocaine in group 2 and D5W in group 4, there were no significant changes in defibrillation threshold values. However, when cesium was added to lidocaine in group 3, the elevated defibrillation threshold values (mean +/- SD) returned to baseline values (from 15.7 +/- 3.46 to 7.55 +/- 3.19 J, p < 0.01). Cesium added to D5W in group 1 also significantly reduced defibrillation threshold values from 7.10 +/- 1.27 to 4.14 +/- 1.75 J (p < 0.01). The effect of cesium on defibrillation threshold values was similar between groups 1 and 3, regardless of lidocaine, such that these values were reduced by 40 +/- 14% and 51 +/- 18%, respectively (p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Cesium, through potassium blockade, reverses lidocaine-induced elevation in defibrillation threshold values. The magnitude of defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to lidocaine was similar to the defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to placebo. Thus, inhibiting outward potassium conductance and prolonging repolarization decreases defibrillation threshold values independent of sodium channel blockade.

Clinical predictors of defibrillation energy requirements in patients treated with a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system. The ResQ Investigators

Many factors can influence defibrillation energy requirements (DER) in patients with a nonthoracotomy defibrillator. No large studies, however, have correlated clinical characteristics with the DER. In this study, 124 patients underwent the same DER protocol with the identical biphasic waveform, nonthoracotomy lead system, and lead configuration. These patients were 63 +/- 12 years old (mean +/- SD); 99 were men; the ejection fraction was 0.32 +/- 0.13, and 36 were taking an antiarrhythmic medication. New York Heart Association congestive heart failure class I was present in 28, class II in 70, and class III in 26 patients. Male sex (454 +/- 94 V vs 406 +/- 91 V for female sex) was associated with a significantly higher DER (p = 0.02) and an increased risk of a DER > 550 V (p = 0.047). No other clinical variable was associated with the DER or a DER > 550 V. In conclusion, women tend to have lower DERs than men.

Class III antiarrhythmic effects of LY-190147 on defibrillation threshold

Defibrillation strength shocks delivered within an action potential (AP) delay repolarization. Shock-induced AP duration extension (APDE) may prolong refractoriness and terminate or prevent reinitiation of reentry, favoring defibrillation. This study examined LY-190147 (LY) effects on defibrillation threshold (DFT) in 11 dogs. Ventricular effective refractory period (VERP) and epicardial monophasic AP duration at 75% repolarization (APD75) were recorded at 300-, 400-, 500-, and 600-ms pacing cycle length (CL). APDE was measured as the time to 50% repolarization after a DFT strength shock delivered at 50, 25, and 0 ms before or 25 ms after VERP during pacing at 300 ms CL in 4 of the dogs. We made all recordings before drug administration and after infusions of 0.03, 0.3, and 3.0 mg/kg LY, using 1.5-h dosing intervals. LY lowered DFT in a saturating dose-response manner whether expressed as shock peak voltage (V) or energy. LY decreased DFT-V from 357 +/- 77 V before drug to 331 +/- 60 V (-6 +/- 12%), 290 +/- 43 V (-17 +/- 13%, p < 0.001), and 312 +/- 45 V (-11 +/- 12%, p < 0.05) at 0.03, 0.3, and 3.0 mg/kg, respectively. Similarly, LY treatment decreased defibrillation energy requirements from 6.9 +/- 2.7 J before drug by 7 +/- 25%, 26 +/- 24%, and 12 +/- 25% at the same doses. At 300-600 ms CL, LY prolonged APD75 by an average of 10 +/- 8% at 0.03 mg/kg, 17 +/- 6% at 0.3 mg/kg, and 24 +/- 9% at 3 mg/kg. At these CL, LY prolonged VERP by an average of 4 +/- 6% at 0.03 mg/kg, 15 +/- 10% at 0.3 mg/kg, and 11 +/- 9% at 3 mg/kg. APDE was increased from 62 +/- 9 ms before to 68 +/- 14, 80 +/- 16 (p < 0.001) and 72 +/- 13 ms (p < 0.05) at 0.03, 0.3, and 3.0 mg/kg LY, respectively. Therefore, LY prolonged VERP and APDE and affected DFT in the same saturating dose-response manner. LY may facilitate defibrillation by increasing the duration of postshock refractoriness.

Differential effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold with monophasic versus biphasic shock waveforms

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation waveforms and antiarrhythmic drugs have disparate effects on myocardial excitability and refractoriness, making it likely that antiarrhythmic drugs will interact with one waveform differently than with another. The aim of the present study was to determine if the increase in defibrillation threshold (DFT) induced by lidocaine is similar for electrical shocks with monophasic and biphasic waveforms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-six pentobarbital-anesthetized farm-raised pigs were instrumented with pacing catheters and epicardial defibrillation electrodes. Each pig was assigned to one of four groups: (1) monophasic shock waveform and placebo (5% dextrose in water [D5W]) (n = 7), (2) monophasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7), (3) biphasic shock waveform and placebo (D5W) (n = 5), or (4) biphasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7). DFT was measured at baseline and subsequently during treatment (D5W or lidocaine). In the monophasic waveform groups, DFT increased from baseline in response to lidocaine by 92% (P < .0001), whereas DFT values in response to D5W did not change. In the biphasic waveform groups, DFT values did not change from baseline in response to lidocaine (P = NS), whereas DFT values from baseline in response to D5W significantly decreased by 29% (P = .04). In the monophasic waveform groups, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was significantly different than the change from baseline in response to D5W (92 +/- 29% versus -0.5 +/- 29%, respectively) (P < .0002). In the biphasic waveform groups, however, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was similar to the change from baseline in response to D5W (-5.66 +/- 15% versus -29 +/- 17%, respectively) (P = .48). Furthermore, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine differed significantly between monophasic and biphasic waveform groups (92 +/- 29% versus -5.66 +/- 15%) (P < .0002), whereas the change from baseline in response to D5W did not differ between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (-0.5 +/- 29% versus -29 +/- 17%) (P = .34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo groups, DFT values increased during lidocaine treatment to a much greater degree in the monophasic waveform group than in the biphasic waveform group receiving lidocaine. These data support our hypothesis that antiarrhythmic drugs can affect the defibrillation efficacy of monophasic waveforms differently than that of biphasic waveforms.

Effects of optical enantiomers CK-4000(S) and CK-4001(R) on defibrillation and enhancement of shock-induced extension of action potential duration

INTRODUCTION

Class III antiarrhythmics have been reported to lower defibrillation threshold (DFT); however, the mechanism(s) of this effect is unknown. Recent evidence suggests that DFT strength DC shocks may terminate reentrant arrhythmias through prolongation of action potential duration and refractory periods. Since Class III antiarrhythmic drugs prolong repolarization, we examined the hypothesis that these drugs enhance shock-induced action potential duration extension (APDE), which might contribute to lowering of DFT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In order to investigate the specificity of drug effects on action potential repolarization following a shock, an optical enantiomer with mixed beta-blocking and Class III effects (CK-4000) and its enantiomer with "pure" Class III antiarrhythmic effects (CK-4001) were compared against placebo in a canine defibrillation model (n = 8 per group). At the 3 mg/kg dose, the enantiomers nonstereoselectively lowered DFT voltage by 19 +/- 15% (CK-4000, P < 0.05 compared to placebo) and 25 +/- 12% (CK-4001, P < 0.05 compared to placebo), indicating that Class III antiarrhythmic actions alone were sufficient for this effect. Similarly, CK-4000 and CK-4001 at 3 mg/kg enhanced APDE (P < 0.01 compared to placebo) by 20 +/- 11% and 24 +/- 17%, respectively. APDE prolongation significantly correlated with reduction in DFT voltage for both CK-4000 (r = -0.55, P < 0.03) and CK4001 (r = -0.63, P < 0.01). At 3 mg/kg, the enantiomers stereoselectively prolonged action potential duration (APD75) by an average of 37 +/- 14% (CK-4000, P < 0.001) and 23 +/- 14% (CK-4001, P < 0.001), and ventricular effective refractory period (VERP) by 38 +/- 15% (CK-4000, P < 0.01) and 27 +/- 13% (CK-4001, P < 0.05). Prolongations of APD75 and VERP did not correlate with reductions of DFT in individual dogs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that Class III antiarrhythmics and DFT strength shocks additively delay repolarization, which suggests that drug enhancement of APDE may contribute to their effects on DFT.