Sacubitril/Valsartan and Mexiletine: A Proarrhythmic Combination?

Effectiveness and safety of mexiletine in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias: a systematic review

While mexiletine has been used for over 40 years for prevention of (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and for myotonia, patient access has recently been critically endangered. Here we aim to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of mexiletine in the treatment of patients with (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias, emphasizing the absolute necessity of its accessibility. Studies were included in this systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42020213434) if the efficacy or safety of mexiletine in any dose was evaluated in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias with or without comparison with alternative treatments (e.g. placebo). A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and in the clinical trial registry databases ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Risk of bias were assessed and tailored to the different study designs. Large heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures prompted a narrative synthesis approach. In total, 221 studies were included reporting on 8970 patients treated with mexiletine. Age ranged from 0 to 88 years. A decrease in ventricular arrhythmias of >50% was observed in 72% of the studies for pre-mature ventricular complexes, 64% for ventricular tachycardia, and 33% for ventricular fibrillation. Electrocardiographic effects of mexiletine were small; only in a subset of patients with primary arrhythmia syndromes, a relative (desired) QTc decrease was reproducibly observed. As for adverse events, gastrointestinal complaints were most frequently observed (33% of the patients). In this systematic review, we present all the currently available knowledge of mexiletine in patients at risk for (recurrent) ventricular arrhythmias and show that mexiletine is both effective and safe.

Electrophysiologic effects of sacubitril in different arrhythmia models

BACKGROUND

Previous studies report conflicting data regarding anti- or proarrhythmic effects of sacubitril. Aim of this study was to assess the impact of acute sacubitril treatment in different arrhythmia models.

METHODS

Sacubitril was administered (3, 5, 10 μM) in 12 isolated rabbit hearts. Further 12 hearts were treated with erythromycin to simulate long-QT-syndrome-2 (LQT2). Other 12 hearts were perfused with veratridine to mimic long-QT-syndrome-3 (LQT3). Both LQT-groups were treated with sacubitril (5 μM) additionally. Ventricular vulnerability was assessed by a pacing protocol. AV-blocked bradycardic hearts were perfused with a hypokalemic solution to trigger torsade de pointes (TdP). In further 13 hearts, AF was induced by a combination of acetylcholine and isoproterenol and sacubitril (5 μM) was added afterwards.

RESULTS

With sacubitril, action potential duration (APD) was abbreviated whereas spatial dispersion of repolarisation (SDR) remained stable. In both LQT groups, APD and SDR were increased. Infusion of sacubitril reduced APD (- 21 ms, p < 0.01) and SDR (- 8 ms) in the LQT2-group and did not alter APD (+2 ms) but reduced SDR (-19 ms, p < 0.01) in the LQT3-group. Ventricular vulnerability was not altered by sacubitril. No TdP were observed with sacubitril or under baseline conditions in any group. Sacubitril significantly suppressed TdP in the LQT2-group (3 vs. 43 episodes, p < 0.05) but not in the LQT3-group (10 vs. 16 episodes, p = ns). Sacubitril reduced inducibility of AF (9 vs. 31 episodes).

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril abbreviated APD. In addition, sacubitril exhibits potential antiarrhythmic effects in LQT2 and may be beneficial in LQT3 and AF.