Oral sotalol in neonatal supraventricular tachycardia

Pharmacologic management of supraventricular tachycardias in children. Part 2: Atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation, and junctional and atrial ectopic tachycardia

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature regarding the use of antiarrhythmic agents in the management of atrial flutter (AF), atrial fibrillation (Afib), junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET), and atrial ectopic tachycardia (AET) in infants and children. To discuss the advantages and disadvantages of specific agents in each type of arrhythmia in an effort to develop treatment guidelines.

DATA SOURCE

A MEDLINE search encompassing the years 1966-1996 was used to identify pertinent literature for discussion. Additional references were found in the articles, which were retrieved via MEDLINE.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials that address the use of antiarrhythmic agents for the treatment of supraventricular tachycardia, AF, Afib, JET, and AET in children were selected. Literature pertaining to dosage, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and toxicity of antiarrhythmic agents in children were considered for possible inclusion in the review; information judged to be pertinent by the authors was included in the discussion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Although there are numerous reports of antiarrhythmic use in children, there are very few large studies designed that evaluate the use of specific antiarrhythmic agents in the treatment of AF, Afib, JET, or AET. Ideally, controlled clinical trials are used to develop clinical guidelines; however, in this situation, most data and information must be obtained from case series of children treated. Although the results from these types of studies may be useful in developing guidelines for the optimal use of these agents for the treatment of AF, Afib, JET, and AET, controlled trials are required for establishing standard treatment guidelines for all patients.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Despite limited scientific evaluation of conventional agents in the treatment of AF, Afib, JET, or AET in children, they continue to be the standards of care. Most information regarding the use of conventional agents in children has been extrapolated from the adult literature. Little justification for the use of the agents or dosing in children is available. Controlled trials regarding the use of newer antiarrhythmic agents (propafenone, amiodarone, flecainide) are available; however, the variance in dosing schemes, presence of structural heart disease, and patient age may confound the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of greater clinical experience, conventional antiarrhythmic agents generally remain as first-line therapy in the management of most supraventricular tachycardias in children. Atrial pacing or cardioversion to reestablish sinus rhythm is indicated for initial episodes of AF in infants, followed by chronic prophylactic therapy in those with significant structural heart disease or in infants in whom AF recurs. Attempts to eliminate AF in children outside the neonatal or infancy period should begin with trials of traditional agents such as digoxin or procainamide, and if unsuccessful, subsequent trials of amiodarone. Digoxin and beta-blockers remain the mainstay of therapy for children with Afib, followed by procainamide for treatment failures. Intravenous amiodarone, the newest addition to our antiarrhythmic armamentarium, is the most promising agent in the treatment of postoperative JET. This arrhythmia has been traditionally managed with corporal cooling and/or digoxin therapy; however, intravenous amiodarone may now be a valuable option. Although relatively unsuccessful in the management of congenital JET and AET, conventional agents are typically used prior to the initiation of long-term therapy with potentially more toxic agents such as amiodarone or propafenone. Additional well-designed, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the comparative efficacy of agents such as flecainide, sotalol, moricizine, propafenone, and amiodarone in the management of AF, Afib, JET, and AET in children, as well as to evaluate the dosing and toxicity in various age groups.

Pharmacologic management of supraventricular tachycardias in children. Part 1: Wolff-Parkinson-White and atrioventricular nodal reentry

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature regarding the use of antiarrhythmic agents in the management of Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome and atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT) in infants and children, and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of specific agents in each arrhythmia in an effort to develop treatment guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search encompassing the years 1966-1996 was used to identify pertinent literature for discussion. Additional references were found in the articles that were retrieved via MEDLINE.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials that address the use of antiarrhythmic agents for the treatment of the supraventricular tachycardias WPW and AVNRT in children were selected. Literature pertaining to dosage, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and toxicity of antiarrhythmic agents in children were considered for possible inclusion in the review, and information judged to be pertinent by the authors was included in the discussion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Although there are numerous reports of antiarrhythmic use in children, very few large studies are designed to evaluate an individual antiarrhythmic agent for a specific arrhythmia. Controlled, comparison trials of antiarrhythmic agents in children are virtually nonexistent. Ideally, controlled clinical trials are used to develop clinical guidelines; however, in this situation, most data and information must be obtained from case series of children treated. Although the results from these type of studies may be useful in developing guidelines for the optimal use of these agents, controlled trials are required for establishing standard treatment guidelines for all patients.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Despite limited scientific evaluation of conventional agents in the treatment of WPW and AVNRT in children, they continue to be used as standard of care. Most information regarding the use of conventional agents in children has been extrapolated from the adult literature. Little justification for the use of agents or dosing in children is available. Controlled trials regarding the use of new antiarrhythmic agents (propafenone, amiodarone, flecainide) are available; however, the variance in dosing schemes, presence of structural heart disease, and patient age make the development of recommendations difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of greater clinical experience with these conventional antiarrhythmic agents, they continue to be first-line therapy in the management of most supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in children. The management of SVT in children with WPW syndrome should begin with the use of a beta-blocker with the addition of digoxin or procainamide for treatment failures. The use of digoxin monotherapy, although frequently used by many practitioners in infants and children with WPW, cannot be recommended. For failures to conventional agents, flecainide is the preferred agent, while therapy with propafenone, amiodarone, and sotalol remains to be elucidated. The management of AVRNT is similar to that of WPW; however, digoxin is the agent of first choice. Trials of beta-blockers and procainamide should follow for treatment failures with flecainide again being the preferred "newer" antiarrhythmic for use in resistant cases. Additional well-designed, controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the comparative efficacy of antiarrhythmics in the management of WPW and AVNRT in children, as well as to evaluate dosing and toxicity in various age groups.

Sotalol for refractory arrhythmias in pediatric and young adult patients: initial efficacy and long-term outcome

Sotalol is an antiarrhythmic medication that has properties of both a beta-blocker and a class III agent and has been used safely and effectively to treat arrhythmias of multiple mechanisms in pediatric patients. The purpose of this study was to review our institutional experience with sotalol in 45 patients with refractory arrhythmias and determine their long-term outcome. Patients responded to sotalol with 80% efficacy and a 22% incidence of adverse side effects. The mean sotalol dose was 116 mg/m2/day, and the average duration of therapy was 15.2 months. In spite of 80% efficacy, only 22% of patients remained on sotalol long-term. Sotalol was discontinued most commonly for either spontaneous resolution of disease or definitive cure by radiofrequency ablation. Other reasons for discontinuation of effective therapy included adverse side effects and arrhythmia control with either an antitachycardia pacemaker or another medication. One patient died while taking sotalol, but this case was considered a failure of treatment rather than an adverse side effect. Of the patients who still receive therapy, several have complex structural heart disease and require a combination of therapies, including sotalol, for adequate rhythm control.

Treatment of atrial ectopic tachycardia in infants < 6 months old

Nineteen infants < 6 months old who had atrial ectopic tachycardia (AET) were treated with antiarrhythmic drugs. AET was controlled with digoxin in 1 patient, propafenone in 2, digoxin with propafenone in 9, digoxin with amiodarone in 4, and digoxin with propafenone and amiodarone in 2; radiofrequency ablation was performed in 1 drug-resistant case. AET resolved in 14 of 15 infants within 1 year. Drug side effects occurred in 5 patients. We conclude that AET in infants < 6 months old can be successfully treated with antiarrhythmic drugs, and we recommend a three-step approach with digoxin, a class 1C antiarrhythmic drug, and a class 3 drug. Resolution of AET in infants is frequent.

Effectiveness of oral sotalol for treatment of pediatric arrhythmias

Sotalol is a beta blocker with class III activity. Few investigators have reported its use in pediatric patients. From August 1985 to May 1990, 66 patients (mean age 8.7 years; range 9 days to 24 years), including 14 infants aged less than 3 months, were treated with oral sotalol alone (n = 46) or in association with digoxin (n = 20). Supraventricular reentrant tachycardia was present in 38 patients (20 with documented preexcitation), atrial flutter in 10 and atrial ectopic tachycardia in 7. Three patients had other types of supraventricular tachycardia. Tachycardia was of ventricular origin in 6 patients and both of supraventricular and ventricular origin in the remaining 2. Mean dose of oral sotalol was 135 mg/m2/day given in 2 doses. Congenital heart disease was present in 28 patients, 14 with previous cardiac surgery, mostly at the atrial level. Prior treatment with 1 or more antiarrhythmic agent had been unsuccessful in 83% of patients. Mean duration of treatment was 13.3 months (range 2 months to 5 years). Overall, treatment was successful in 79% of cases. Highest rate of success was observed in patients with supraventricular reentrant tachycardia with or without preexcitation (89%) and in those with atrial ectopic tachycardia (85.5%). Atrial flutter could be controlled in 60% of cases. Sotalol seemed less effective in ventricular tachycardia with a complete control of the arrhythmia being achieved in only 17%; however, it decreased the number of runs of ventricular tachycardia and the number of ventricular premature complexes in 50% of patients. There were no adverse effects in 89% of patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Supraventricular tachycardia associated with continuous furosemide infusion

Three cases of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) associated with the use of furosemide infusion (FI) in children following cardiac surgery are reported. The SVT occurred three to seven hours after starting an infusion at 1.0 mg.kg-1.hr-1. All three patients had a diuresis of 8-10 ml.kg-1.hr-1 compared with a mean average of 2.5 ml.kg-1.hr-1 in 22 other patients who had received a similar infusion. A rapid fluid shift was the most likely mechanism of the tachycardia. Sotalol was effective in controlling the tachycardia in the two patients in whom it was tried. We now recommend a starting dose of 0.3 mg.kg-1.hr-1 in using furosemide as a continuous infusion, with hourly increments of 0.1 mg.kg-1.hr-1 until the desired diuresis is obtained.