The Effect of Dofetilide on Ventricular Defibrillation Thresholds

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.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Who Doesn't Get It?

Defibrillation testing has been routinely performed as part of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedure, and is currently supported by practice guidelines; however, more recently, this practice has been called into question. Such testing is safe, and serious complications are rare. With modern ICD systems, physicians will rarely encounter a patient in whom defibrillation will fail. This article reviews the literature regarding the utility, necessity, complications, and cost of routine operative and follow-up defibrillation testing, and, it is hoped, clarifies the issue of "Who doesn't get it?"

Adjuvant antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The risk of sudden cardiac death from ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia in patients with cardiomyopathy related to structural heart disease has been favorably impacted by the wide adaptation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for both primary and secondary prevention. Unfortunately, after ICD implantation both appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies are common. ICD shocks in particular can have significant effects on quality of life and disease-related morbidity and mortality. While not indicated for primary prevention of ICD therapies, beta-blockers and antiarrhythmic drugs are a cornerstone for secondary prevention of them. This review will summarize our current understanding of adjuvant antiarrhythmic drug therapy in ICD patients. The review will also discuss the roles of nonantiarrhythmic drug approaches that are used in isolation and in combination with antiarrhythmic drugs to reduce subsequent risk of ICD shocks.

Limitations of the DF-4 defibrillator connector necessitating device removal

The DF-4 implantable defibrillator connector was recently released for clinical practice. This connector facilitates lead to device connection, reduces bulk in the device pocket, and eliminates the risk of incorrect device connection. Unfortunately, new technology often introduces new challenges. We report the case of a 63-year-old male with chronic systolic heart failure referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implant. Limitations implicit to the current iteration of this technology include a lack of additional connectivity. In the present case, these limitations ultimately warranted device removal and reimplant with a traditional trifurcating IS-1/DF-1 connector.

Nifekalant versus lidocaine for in-hospital shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of nifekalant, a pure class III anti-arrhythmic drug, and lidocaine in patients with shock-resistant in-hospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between August 2005 and March 2008, we conducted a prospective, two-arm, cluster observational study, in which participating hospitals were pre-registered either to the nifekalant arm or the lidocaine arm. Patients were enrolled if they had in-hospital VF or VT resistant to at least two defibrillation shocks. Congenital or drug-induced long QT syndrome was excluded. The primary end-point was termination of VF or VT with/without additional shock. The secondary end-points were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-month survival and survival to hospital discharge. We also assessed the frequency of adverse events, including asystole, pulseless electrical activity and torsade de pointes.

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients were enrolled. After nifekalant, 22 of 27 patients showed termination of VF or VT, as compared with 15 of 28 patients treated with lidocaine with/without additional shock (odds ratio (OR): 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-13.0; P=0.03). Twenty-three of 27 patients given nifekalant showed ROSC, as compared with 15 of 28 patients given lidocaine (OR: 5.0; 95% CI: 1.4-18.2; P=0.01). There was no difference in 1-month survival or survival to hospital discharge between the nifekalant and lidocaine arms. There was a higher incidence of asystole with lidocaine (7 of 28 patients) than with nifekalant (0 of 27 patients) (P=0.005). Torsade de pointes was not observed.

CONCLUSION

Nifekalant was more effective than lidocaine for termination of arrhythmia and for ROSC in patients with shock-resistant in-hospital VF or VT (umin-CTR No. UMIN 000001781).