Cardiovascular benefits outweigh risks in patients with atrial fibrillation in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial)

Background/Introduction

REDUCE-IT, a multinational, double-blind trial, randomized 8179 statin-treated patients with controlled low density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, and cardiovascular (CV) risk, to icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4 grams/day or placebo. IPE reduced the primary (CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina) and key secondary (CV death, MI, stroke) endpoints 25% and 26%, respectively (each p<0.0001), and individual components including stroke (28%), MI (31%), cardiac arrest (48%), and sudden cardiac death (31%) (all p≤0.01). With IPE, bleeding was greater (11.8% vs 9.9%; p=0.006), serious bleeding trended higher (2.7% vs 2.1%; p=0.06), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/F) hospitalization endpoints increased (3.1% vs 2.1%; p=0.004).

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of IPE on the risk of CV events and safety measures in patients by either history of AF/F or in-study occurrence of positively adjudicated AF/F hospitalization.

Methods

Conduct post hoc efficacy and safety subgroup analyses of patients with or without either baseline history of AF/F or in-study adjudicated AF/F hospitalization, including hospitalization for ≥24 hours; AF/F not meeting endpoint criteria were reported as adverse events.

Results

Patients with (n=751; 9.2%) AF/F history at baseline (vs without; n=7428; 90.8%) (Figure 1), or those with (n=211; 2.6%) positively adjudicated in-study AF/F hospitalization endpoints (vs without; n=7968; 97.4%) (Figure 2), had higher event rates of primary, key secondary, and fatal or nonfatal stroke endpoints, but relative risk reductions with IPE were not significantly different (all interaction p-values [pint]=ns). Similar reductions were observed with IPE across the prespecified endpoint testing hierarchy in patients with or without AF/F history or in-study hospitalization endpoints. Patients with baseline AF/F history had similar relative risk for in-study occurrence of AF/F hospitalization with IPE versus placebo (pint=0.21) but had greater absolute risk (12.5% vs 6.3%, IPE vs placebo) vs patients without baseline AF/F history (2.2% vs 1.6%, IPE vs placebo); i.e., recurrent AF/F in those with a prior history of AF/F was more prevalent than de novo AF/F. Serious bleeding trended higher regardless of AF/F history or in-study AF/F hospitalization endpoints (all pint=ns); absolute risk of serious bleeding was greater in patients with AF/F history at baseline (7.3% vs 6.0%) vs those without a baseline history of AF/F (2.3% vs 1.7%), and serious bleeding also trended higher in patients with in-study AF/F hospitalization (8.7% vs 6.0%) vs without (2.5% vs 2.0%) [all IPE vs placebo].

Conclusion

REDUCE-IT patients with AF/F history or in-study AF/F hospitalization endpoints had greater CV risk, but similar relative risk reduction in primary, key secondary, and fatal or nonfatal stroke endpoints with IPE.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Antiarrhythmic Medication for Atrial Fibrillation (AIM-AF) study: A physician survey of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment practices and guideline adherence in the EU and USA

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Sanofi

Introduction

The 2020 European Society of Cardiology and the 2019 USA (AHA/ACC/HRS) guidelines recommend the use of AADs for rhythm control in patients with symptomatic AF. This study sought to understand AAD treatment practices and adherence to guidelines across the EU and the USA.

Method

An online physician survey of cardiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists and interventional electrophysiologists (N = 569) was conducted in the USA, Germany, Italy and the UK. All respondents were actively treating ≥10 AF patients who received drug therapy and/or who had received or were referred for ablation. This extensively detailed survey explored questions on physician demographics, AF types, and drug treatment and ablation practices.

Results: Of the responses obtained

(1) Amiodarone was used frequently across co-morbidity categories (highest use in those with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] [80%]), including in those in which it is not indicated for initial therapy (minimal or no structural heart disease: 26%). Other deviations from guideline recommendations, include: class 1C drugs were used with structural heart disease, including coronary artery disease (CAD) (average class 1C use in CAD-related comorbidities: 6%); sotalol was used with renal dysfunction (22%); and drugs such as sotalol and dofetilide were initiated out of hospital (56% and 17% of respondents, respectively). (2) Nonetheless, a majority of respondents (53%) considered guidelines as the most important non-patient factor in influencing their choice of AF management. (3) Rhythm control was selected more frequently as primary therapy for paroxysmal AF (PAF) (59% of patients) while rate control was used more often for persistent AF (53%). (4) For PAF, AADs were preferred as 1st line more often than ablation, especially if PAF was infrequent and mildly symptomatic (59% of respondents) while ablation was preferred more if frequent symptomatic PAF and for recurrent persistent AF. (5) Rhythm control (AAD or ablation) was chosen in notable numbers for asymptomatic AF and subclinical AF (AADs: 36% and 37%, respectively; ablation: 9% and 14%, respectively). (6) AAD use for those with a first or recurrent episodes of symptomatic AF was 60% or 47%, respectively. (7) Efficacy and safety were chosen as the most important considerations for choice of specific rhythm control therapy (49% and 33%, respectively), and reduction of mortality and cardiovascular hospitalisation (23%) were as important as maintaining sinus rhythm (26%) for rhythm therapy goals.

Conclusions

Although surveyed clinicians consider guidelines important, deviations in patient types and treatments chosen that compromise safety or were not indicated were common. Findings suggest a lack of understanding of the pharmacology and safe use of AADs, highlighting an important need for further education. Abstract Figure.

P1903Efficacy and safety of dronedarone after recent cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter: a post-hoc analysis of the EURIDIS/ADONIS trials

Background

Cardioversion is commonly performed prior to antiarrhythmic drug initiation for atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF). There are limited data describing baseline differences in patients requiring cardioversion to maintain sinus rhythm compared to those who do not. Likewise, response to antiarrhythmic drugs, including dronedarone, specifically in patients requiring cardioversion has not been well defined.

Purpose

To evaluate efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus placebo in patients with non-permanent AF who had cardioversion within 5 days prior to randomization in EURIDIS/ADONIS.

Methods

To qualify for enrolment in EURIDIS/ADONIS patients were required to be in sinus rhythm for at least 1 hour preceding randomization. Of 1237 patients randomized (2:1 dronedarone to placebo), 364 needed cardioversion for study entry (dronedarone 243, placebo 121). AF recurrence was evaluated by ECG obtained during study visits, scheduled transtelephonic monitoring, or at symptom recurrence.

Results

Cardioversion patients were more likely to have rheumatic heart disease, valvular heart disease, any structural heart disease, and heart failure. Nonetheless, the median time to 1st AF recurrence was longer for dronedarone versus placebo both in cardioversion patients (50 versus 15 days, hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.59, 0.97) and no cardioversion patients (150 versus 77 days, hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.64, 0.90), as was time to 1st symptomatic recurrence (cardioversion: 347 versus 87 days, hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.49, 0.87; no cardioversion: 288 versus 120 days, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.62, 0.90) (Figure 1). There was a trend towards fewer 1st AF hospitalizations within 12 months for dronedarone versus placebo (7.8 versus 12.4%, hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.31, 1.18 in cardioversion patients; 8.4 versus 10.4%, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.47, 1.17 in no cardioversion patients). In cardioversion patients, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events with dronedarone versus placebo were 64 versus 66%, serious treatment-emergent adverse events were 19 versus 26%, permanent discontinuations were 9 versus 6%, and deaths were 0 versus 1%.

Conclusions

1) Cardioversion-requiring patients have more baseline structural heart disease and overall shorter time to AF recurrence. 2) Dronedarone effectively delayed 1st AF recurrence versus placebo in patients with or without recent cardioversion. 3) Safety of dronedarone in cardioversion patients was similar to placebo and overall observations from EURIDIS/ADONIS despite baseline differences in comorbidities.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Sanofi, New York, New York, United States of America

Importance of QT interval determination and renal function assessment during antiarrhythmic drug therapy

A major concern associated with the use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) is the occurrence of ventricular proarrhythmia, especially torsade de pointes (TdP). The AADs associated with TdP most commonly include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, sotalol, and the newer class III agents, such as ibutilide and dofetilide. It is not simply the administration and nature of an AAD but also several additional factors such as heart rate, ventricular hypertrophy, congestive heart failure, gender, age, concomitant drugs, and impaired drug clearance that influence TdP development. Dosing of these agents should be adjusted to take such factors into account to minimize the incidence of proarrhythmia.

Issues in the use of generic antiarrhythmic drugs

Formulation substitution using generic preparations for innovator products is becoming increasingly prevalent in the name of cost containment. So long as generic substitutes are truly clinically equivalent to the innovator compounds, patient harm should not ensue. However, for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, serious concerns about generic equivalence are beginning to arise, particularly with neurologic, immunosuppressive, anticoagulant, and antiarrhythmic drugs. This article reviews the guidelines used to approve a generic compound and their limitations and provides case-based information as to the adverse clinical consequences-arrhythmia recurrence, proarrhythmia, and death-that have now been reported in association with generic substitution of antiarrhythmic compounds. Additionally, guidelines for allowance or avoidance of antiarrhythmic drug formulation substitution are suggested.

The actions of ibutilide and class Ic drugs on the slow sodium channel: new insights regarding individual pharmacologic effects elucidated through combination therapies

BACKGROUND

Ibutilide (I) has been reported to block I(k) and to delay inactivation of the slow Na(+) current (S-Na). There is debate about the clinical importance of the latter. Class Ic drugs block the fast Na(+) channel, but their effect on S-Na is uncertain. If Ic treatment before infusion lessened the QT increase with I, this result would suggest both an Ic effect on S-Na and significant S-Na actions of I.

METHODS

We infused I, 2 mg over 30 minutes, to 6 patients pretreated with propafenone (n = 5) or flecainide (n = 1) (group 1) and compared their increase with the QT increase seen with I alone in a combined group of 85 patients from our lab and the multicenter I database (group 2).

RESULTS

The QTc increased in group 2, 65 ms, from 413 to 478 ms. This effect was attenuated by 47% in group 1 patients to 34 ms (P <.01). There appeared to be a dose-response relationship between Ic dose and its effects on QTc prolongation. The lowest dose of propafenone had minimal effect on the increase in QTc with I (72 ms), while higher doses of propafenone and high doses of flecainide attenuated the increase to 13 to 39 ms. Nonetheless, ibutilide efficacy was not changed, possibly suggesting differing importance of K(+) channel and slow sodium-channel effects in atrial versus ventricular tissues, and having implications for means to reduce some antiarrhythmic drug proarrhythmia without reducing efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Pretreatment with Ic agents can reduce the increase in QTc seen with I; (2) I's effect in humans appears to be at least partly mediated through the delay of S-Na inactivation; and (3) Ic agents probably inhibit S-Na.

Formulation substitution and other pharmacokinetic variability: underappreciated variables affecting antiarrhythmic efficacy and safety in clinical practice

The process of treating a patient with an antiarrhythmic drug only begins when a physician chooses the drug to be employed. In the given patient, not only must the drug be chosen, but so must the dose, the formulation, and the method of follow-up. Choosing the proper dose requires an understanding of clinical trial efficacy and safety data for the agent chosen in a population of patients resembling the individual to be treated. It also requires a detailed understanding of pharmacologic principles of drug kinetics (e.g., absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) that might affect the dose needed for the specific patient. The physician must be familiar with subsequent changes in clinical circumstances that might indicate a need for a change in dose or drug. Many circumstances determining drug pharmacokinetics are not under the immediate control of physicians, such as genetic patterns, organ function, and disease circumstances. One, however, is-or should always be-the selection of the drug formulation used. Although generic versions of innovator drugs exist for many agents and often are clinically acceptable, most physicians are unaware of the meager degree of testing that is necessary for the release of a generic drug, and the wide range of attained serum levels that are called bioequivalent by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when one formulation is compared with another. In patients with cardiac arrhythmias, arrhythmia recurrence, proarrhythmia, and death have been reported in association with antiarrhythmic drug formulation substitution. Despite their reported bioequivalence, the generic agents involved were clearly not therapeutically equivalent. Accordingly, this article was written to educate physicians further about the above-noted important pharmacokinetic variables that can affect a patient's outcome when an antiarrhythmic drug is employed, and to provide information on the generic drug approval process and guidelines for the use of formulation substitution.

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.

Generic antiarrhythmics are not therapeutically equivalent for the treatment of tachyarrhythmias

The consequences of antiarrhythmic drug formulation substitution were assessed by survey of 130 experts on arrhythmias. Fifty-four arrhythmia recurrences, 7 proarrhythmic events, and 3 deaths resulting from generic substitution are reported, thus raising serious concerns about both antiarrhythmic drug substitution and the adequacy of the generic drug approval process.

The importance of considering trial design when interpreting clinical trial results

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, clinical trials have played an increasingly important role in determining how we practice. Trial results proving that a clinical finding poses risk have led to interventions that try to reduce risk. Clinical trials proving that a particular therapy provides better outcome than another therapy have changed the therapies we now use. Unfortunately, the results of clinical trials are too often affected by biases or design issues that may overtly or covertly alter the results or the way they should really be used. In addition, these biases and design and analysis issues are rarely evident in the abstract sections or key figures and tables in the publications reporting the trials, which may be all the busy physician either reads or remembers.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This manuscript discusses the issues involved in optimally understanding clinical trial design and interpretation so that practitioners can better understand how to intelligently read and apply trial results to clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial results can not be properly applied without consideration of trial design features and intertrial comparisons.

Inpatient versus outpatient antiarrhythmic drug initiation: safety and cost-effectiveness issues

Debate exists as to the proper site for initiating antiarrhythmic therapy for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and other benign forms of ectopy: inpatient versus outpatient. Rapid detection of efficacy and adverse effects, with immediate correction of the latter, favors the inpatient site. Convenience and, under most circumstances, lower cost favor the outpatient site. Circumstances under which adverse event rates, including proarrhythmia, are expectedly low, would favor outpatient initiation. So would the use of an agent whose elimination half-life is so long as to render in-hospital monitoring to steady state highly impractical. Accordingly, outpatient initiation would be suitable for patients without structural heart disease receiving class IC drugs, patients with low risk for torsades de pointes receiving selected class III agents, in whom data in the literature are supportive (as has occurred with sotalol and azimilide), and patients who are to receive amiodarone. Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring can be used to facilitate assessment in the outpatient setting. Inpatient initiation should be considered for patients with underlying sinus node or atrioventricular conduction disturbances, for patients with significant structural heart disease, for patients receiving a drug whose proarrhythmia may be idiosyncratic (e.g., quinidine), and for patients who are to begin an antiarrhythmic drug while in a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia in whom sinus rhythm has not previously been seen. The relative costs and benefits of the approach chosen will be a reflection of the probability that a drug with a chosen mechanism will cause an adverse outcome in a patient with a specific clinical substrate during the period chosen for monitoring.

Intravenous Amiodarone in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Although approved only for therapy of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias, intravenous amiodarone is also being used for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), generally in the intensive care unit setting and most often after cardiac surgery. When used for AF, dosing regimens and clinical experience have varied. METHODS AND RESULTS: This article summarizes representative reports in hopes of clarifying the role of intravenous amiodarone for practitioners who prescribe it for the management of AF. The most immediate and most predictable response is reduction of the ventricular rate, which generally is noted after the first 300-400 mg. Restoration of sinus rhythm (cardioversion) may occur, but the precise incidence in a placebo-controlled, blinded study has not been determined. When present, it often takes 24 hours, and a total dose of 1,000 mg or more. Least certain is the efficacy of the drug in preventing the appearance (when used prophylactically) or reappearance of AF. CONCLUSIONS: More data are required with regard to patient characterization, electrical system status, and dosing regimen to better characterize intravenous amiodarone for this role.

Beta-blocker use and survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia: the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether use of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, alone or in combination with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, is associated with improved survival in persons with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT).

BACKGROUND

The ability of beta-blockers to alter the mortality of patients with VF or VT receiving contemporary medical management is not well defined.

METHODS

Survival of 1,016 randomized and 2,101 eligible, nonrandomized patients with VF or symptomatic VT followed in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial through December 31, 1996 was assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

The 817 (28%) patients discharged from hospital receiving beta-blockers had less ventricular dysfunction, fewer symptoms of heart failure and a different pattern of medication use compared with patients not receiving beta-blockers. Before adjustment for important prognostic variables, beta-blockade was not significantly associated with survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy. After adjustment, beta-blockade remained unrelated to survival in randomized or in eligible, nonrandomized patients treated with amiodarone alone (n = 1142; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.45; p = 0.85) or a defibrillator alone (n = 1347; adjusted RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; p = 0.58). In contrast, beta-blockade was independently associated with improved survival in eligible, nonrandomized patients who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 412; adjusted RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.88; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blocker use was independently associated with improved survival in patients with VF or symptomatic VT who were not treated with specific antiarrhythmic therapy, but a protective effect was not prominent in patients already receiving amiodarone or a defibrillator.

Selecting an antiarrhythmic agent for atrial fibrillation should be a patient-specific, data-driven decision

Selecting an antiarrhythmic agent for atrial fibrillation (AF) should be a patient-specific decision. When possible, it should be based on sound rationale and available clinical data. This article details many of the thought processes that must go into this decision process and offers some suggested algorithmic starting points based on these considerations. With a patient's first episode of AF, termination is appropriate, but antiarrhythmic therapy should usually be withheld in order to assess the recurrence pattern. However, if severe hemodynamic or ischemic intolerance would make recurrence a serious risk, or if an early symptomatic recurrence is highly likely, antiarrhythmic therapy would be appropriate. Acute AF may terminate spontaneously or may be terminated iatrogenically. The latter may be achieved by direct current or pharmacologic approaches. The risks, benefits, and optimum utility of these approaches are addressed in the article. Infrequent recurrences may be treated with cardioversion; frequent or severely symptomatic episodes are best treated with attempts at suppression with chronic antiarrhythmic drug administration. Since the therapeutic efficacy of maintaining sinus rhythm is similar for the currently available agents, the drug selection process should be based in large part on safety and convenience considerations. The factors underlying this selection process and one suggested algorithm for drug choice are provided in this article.

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.

Antiarrhythmic drugs and devices for the management of ventricular tachyarrhythmia in ischemic heart disease

Ischemic heart disease is the most frequent cardiac abnormality in patients with sustained or nonsustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The goals of therapy in such patients are to decrease the severity and incidence of symptoms and prolong life. In this article, we review the current views on antiarrhythmic drug therapy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with ischemic heart disease. The importance of beta blockade as part of the therapy is emphasized. In addition, the superiority of sotalol and amiodarone over class I drugs, the benefits of combined treatment with amiodarone and a beta blocker, and the impact and limitations of current trials comparing the effectiveness of drug therapy with that of an ICD are all considered. Also discussed is the combined use of an antiarrhythmic drug and an ICD. In this approach sotalol is generally the agent of choice, with amiodarone the second choice.

Rhythm management in atrial fibrillation--with a primary emphasis on pharmacologic therapy: Part 3

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common, sustained, symptomatic tachyarrhythmia that clinicians are called upon to manage. Management strategies include ventricular rate control coupled with anticoagulation, versus restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Rate control may be achieved pharmacologically, with agents that impair AV nodal conduction directly and/or by increasing parasympathetic/sympathetic balance, or by modifying or ablating the AV nodal region anatomically. Rhythm control may be achieved by electrical or pharmacologic conversion followed by maintenance of sinus rhythm by pharmacologic (or occasionally ablative) therapies. This article will present current approaches to rate and rhythm control issues in atrial fibrillation. Parts 1 and 2, published previously, dealt with rate control and with the restoration of sinus rhythm. Part 3, the current article, details the selection process of choosing a therapy to maintain sinus rhythm, including the likelihood of success, the risks of therapy, and individualization of therapy as dependent upon the nature of the structural heart disease present. It also discusses nonpharmacologic approaches that have been recently developed or are undergoing development. One suggested drug selection algorithm is provided.

Impact of structural heart disease on the selection of class III antiarrhythmics for the prevention of atrial fibrillation and flutter

Antiarrhythmic agents may be beneficial or harmful. Among the harmful effects, or risks, is proarrhythmia. One of several factors that underlie proarrhythmic risk is the presence and nature of any underlying structural heart disease at the time of antiarrhythmic drug administration. The structural disease-antiarrhythmic drug interaction has been best studied and clearly delineated for class I antiarrhythmics. This review provides information to suggest that structural disease can enhance proarrhythmic risk with class III drugs as well, although this is least evident with amiodarone. Particularly pertinent are disorders that prolong action potential duration (such as ventricular hypertrophy or chronic dilatation), inhomogeneous dispersion of refractoriness (including conditions with cellular uncoupling), and reduced ventricular fibrillation threshold. These issues must be considered when choosing an antiarrhythmic drug for atrial and for ventricular arrhythmias and when selecting the dosing and monitoring protocol to be used.

Rhythm management in atrial fibrillation--with a primary emphasis on pharmacological therapy: Part 2

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common, sustained, symptomatic tachyarrhythmia that clinicians are called upon to manage. Management strategies include ventricular rate control coupled with anticoagulation, versus restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Rate control may be achieved pharmacologically, with agents that impair AV nodal conduction directly and/or by increasing parasympathetic/sympathetic balance, or by modifying or ablating the AV nodal region anatomically. Rhythm control may be achieved by electrical or pharmacological conversion followed by maintenance of sinus rhythm by pharmacological (or occasionally ablative) therapies. This article will present current approaches to rate and rhythm control issues in AF. Part 1, published previously, dealt with rate control. Part 2, the current article, details approaches to the restoration of sinus rhythm by electrical and pharmacological means. The former may use transthoracic or catheter-based energy delivery systems. The latter may use intravenous or oral drug approaches. Part 3, to be published in a subsequent edition of PACE will deal with the maintenance of sinus rhythm.

Rhythm management in atrial fibrillation--with a primary emphasis on pharmacological therapy: Part 1

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common, sustained, symptomatic tachyarrhythmia that clinicians are called upon to manage. Management strategies include ventricular rate control coupled with anticoagulation, versus restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. Rate control may be achieved pharmacologically, with agents that impair AV nodal conduction directly and/or by increasing parasympathetic/sympathetic balance, or by modifying or ablating the AV nodal region anatomically. Rhythm control may be achieved by electrical or pharmacological conversion followed by maintenance of sinus rhythm by pharmacological (or occasionally ablative) therapies. This article will present current approaches to rate and rhythm control issues in AF. Part 1, the current manuscript, details approaches to rate control and includes a drug selection algorithmic conclusion. It also introduces the subject of the pursuit of sinus rhythm. Parts 2 and 3, to be published in subsequent editions of PACE, will deal with therapeutic measures to restore and maintain sinus rhythm.

Prolonging survival by reducing arrhythmic death: pharmacologic therapy of ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias is undertaken to reduce arrhythmic symptoms, recurrences, and mortality. Ideally, reduction of arrhythmic death will reduce total mortality as well, although this may not hold true in the presence of competing risk. Whether, in fact, antiarrhythmic therapy actually reduces arrhythmic death remains uncertain in the absence of any placebo-controlled trials. Nonetheless, the following conclusions can be drawn from the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), and the Cardiac Arrest in Seattle: Conventional versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) study, as well as a beta blocker study by Steinbeck et al: (1) class I antiarrhythmics are less effective than amiodarone or sotalol for the prevention of recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation; (2) sympathetic inhibition as a component of the antiarrhythmic regimen may strongly contribute to mortality reduction; and (3) the respective roles of antiarrhythmic drugs, implantable devices, and the concurrent use of both are in a state of flux, awaiting results of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Sotalol for ventricular tachyarrhythmias: beta-blocking and class III contributions, and relative efficacy versus class I drugs after prior drug failure. ESVEM Investigators. Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring

In the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, d,l-sotalol was associated with a lower arrhythmia recurrence and mortality than class I antiarrhythmic drugs. To further evaluate the relative efficacy of d,I-sotalol compared with class I drugs, and to assess the relative importance of its class II (beta-blocking) and class III effects, 6-year arrhythmia recurrence and mortality in patients receiving sotalol were compared with those in patients receiving class I drugs, subdivided according to whether they also received coadministered beta blockers. Relative efficacy was also determined for sotalol and for class I drugs as stratified by the presence/absence of prior drug failure. Arrhythmia recurrence was lower for the 84 patients receiving sotalol than for patients given class I agents with (n = 28) (p = 0.008) or without (n = 184) (p = 0.001) alpha beta blocker. Mortality was lower for patients taking sotalol than for those given a class I drug without alpha beta blocker (p = 0.034), but similar (p = 0.835) if alpha beta blocker was also administered. In contrast to class I drugs, which had lower efficacy rates when prior drug trials had failed, sotalol maintained its efficacy despite prior drug failures preceding or during the ESVEM trial. Both class II and III actions in the ESVEM trial were important to the clinical superiority of sotalol in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Reproducibility of drug efficacy predictions by Holter monitoring in the electrophysiologic study versus electrocardiographic monitoring (ESVEM) trial. ESVEM Investigators

Selection of antiarrhythmic therapy may be based on suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias assessed by Holter monitoring, but the implications of discordant Holter results on repeat 24-hour monitoring has not been defined. This study examines the frequency and significance of reproducible Holter suppression on two 24-hour recordings in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial. Repeat 24-hour Holter monitoring was obtained in patients randomized to the Holter monitor limb of the ESVEM trial, during the same hospitalization, after a drug efficacy prediction. These Holters were not used to define drug efficacy but were subsequently analyzed to determine the reproducibility of drug efficacy predictions by Holter monitoring. A repeat 24-hour Holter monitor, following the one that predicted drug efficacy, was available in 119 patients. Ninety-nine patients (83%) also had suppression that met efficacy criteria on the second Holter monitor. There were no significant differences in arrhythmia recurrence (p = 0.612) or mortality (p = 0.638) in patients with concordant Holter results (n = 99; 1-year arrhythmia recurrence = 45%; 1-year mortality = 10%) compared with those with discordant Holter results (n = 20; 1-year arrhythmia recurrence = 45%; 1-year mortality = 16%). We conclude that (1) there is discordance between the first effective Holter monitor and a repeat Holter monitor in 17% of patients, and (2) suppression of ventricular ectopic activity on 2 separate 24-hour Holter monitors does not identify a group with a better outcome, nor does failure of suppression on the second Holter monitor identify a group with a worse prognosis.

Implications of the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring trial for controlling ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation

The Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial had 2 objectives. The first was to determine the accuracy of noninvasive versus invasive means of predicting the efficacy of drug treatment for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF). A second objective was to determine the relative efficacies of 7 antiarrhythmic drugs used in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. ESVEM was the first opportunity to compare prospectively the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a variety of antiarrhythmic drugs in the same patient population. No significant difference was observed between suppression of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias on Holter monitoring and suppression of inducible ventricular arrhythmias by electrophysiologic study (EPS) in terms of the ability to predict the success of drug therapy. There was also no difference in predictive accuracy if patients in the electrophysiologic limb showed suppression by Holter monitoring in addition to suppression by EPS. Sotalol was more effective than the other 6 antiarrhythmic drugs, all class I agents, in preventing death and recurrence of arrhythmia. Efficacy compared with placebo, however, was not evaluated. In the EPS limb, sotalol was also statistically more likely to achieve an efficacy prediction than any of the sodium channel blocking drugs. Amiodarone was not used in ESVEM. It has been suggested that these conclusions, which differ from those of other, less controlled, invasive and noninvasive studies, might be because of the particular efficacy criteria used in the ESVEM protocol. Retrospective analyses of the ESVEM data were performed using more rigid efficacy criteria than were used in the original ESVEM analysis: a greater degree of ectopy suppression was required for Holter monitoring, and more stringent efficacy definitions were required in the stimulation protocol of the EPS limb. Results from the retrospective analyses and other studies support the initial ESVEM conclusions. In patients with both spontaneous and inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias as well as frequent spontaneous premature ventricular contractions, therapy with sotalol (guided by either Holter monitoring or EPS) is a reasonable initial strategy because of its superior initial long-term efficacy and better acute and long-term tolerability compared with sodium channel blocking drugs.

A summary and assessment of the findings and conclusions of the ESVEM trial

The Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial was completed in 1992 and the primary results were reported in 1993. Since then, considerable discussion about this trial has taken place and new trial results have been reported. Trial analysis has yielded seven principal findings to date concerning treatment of patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias, ie: (1) similar accuracy of electrophysiologic study (EPS), Holter monitoring (HM), and EPS combined with HM for predicting antiarrhythmic drug efficacy; (2) greater efficiency and lower cost of HM; (3) improved survival associated with predicted drug efficacy; (4) predictors of response to EPS and HM; (5) greater efficacy and lower cost of therapy with sotalol compared with drugs with class-l effects; (6) lack of a relationship between presenting and recurring arrhythmia; and (7) preponderance of nonarrhythmic deaths in trial participants. A number of additional specific findings of the trial are reviewed in this symposium. Several criticisms of the trial's enrollment, methods, and efficacy criteria are reviewed and discussed. Some criticisms are valid. Many are related to misunderstandings of ESVEM trial methodology and to bias of the individual critics. Some are simply incorrect. The importance of the ESVEM trial in the present day may be limited by the growing use of implanted devices rather than drugs for treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. If clinical trials ultimately prove devices to be no more effective than drugs, the findings of the ESVEM investigators will grow in importance.

Influence of Holter monitor and electrophysiologic study methods and efficacy criteria on the outcome of patients with ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation in the ESVEM trial

Because not all laboratories use the monitoring and stimulation protocols used in the Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, we reanalyzed the ESVEM patients' data using alternative, commonly used Holter monitor (HM) and programmed stimulation efficacy criteria to determine if different criteria would have changed the trial's conclusions. Also, because beta-blocker use and coronary artery disease frequency were not equally distributed between the two limbs in ESVEM, we reanalyzed the ESVEM data adjusting for the possible effect of these variables. In the HM limb, drug efficacy in the original ESVEM analysis was declared by reduction of total premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) by 70%, pairs by 80%, runs of 3 to 15 beats by 90%, and all ventricular tachycardia (VT) more than 15 beats by 100%. In this analysis, we examine outcome in subjects meeting two more stringent sets of criteria, (1) reduction of total PVCs by 70%, of pairs by 80%, and of all VT by 100% (new criteria set 1) and (2) reduction of total PVCs by 80%, of pairs by 90%, and of all VT by 100% (new criteria set 2). In electrophysiology (EPS) limb patients, we compared arrhythmia recurrence when efficacy was declared with triple extrastimuli as compared with maximally testing with double extrastimuli, and arrhythmia recurrence was compared in patients tested with identical versus any more aggressive protocol on drug than was used before drug. We also compared the predictive accuracy of zero versus 3 to 15, and 0 to 5, 6 to 10, and more than 10 induced beats on drug. Additionally, we compared predictive accuracy of the HM- and EP-guided limbs excluding patients on beta blockers and those with noncoronary disease. Lastly, to determine whether concordant results on HM and EPS testing would provide more accurate efficacy predictions than EP testing alone, HM recordings obtained in EPS-limb patients but not processed or used during the course of the EVSEM study were analyzed. The original ESVEM HM criteria, new set 1, and new set 2 yielded predicted drug efficacy rates of 77%, 68%, and 58%, respectively; however, arrhythmia recurrence rates were unchanged. Similarly, arrhythmia recurrence rates for patients tested with triple versus less than triple extrastimuli (p=.238), more aggressive versus identical protocols (p=.955), and 0 to 5 v 6 to 10 v more than 10 induced beats (p=.263) or 0 v 3 to 15 induced beats (p=.106) were unchanged. in the 215 (of 286) patients with coronary disease and not receiving beta blockers, there was still no difference in arrhythmia recurrence or mortality between the noninvasive and invasive limbs in ESVEM. Lastly, in patients with drug efficacy predictions by EPS testing, there was no difference in outcome in patients who had concordant versus discordant efficacy prediction by simultaneously obtained HMs. The use of more stringent testing methods and efficacy criteria would not have significantly improved the predictive accuracy of drug assessment by HM or EPS in the ESVEM trial. Additionally, excess noncoronary disease in EP-guided patients and excess beta-blocker used in HM-guided patients did not influence the results in the ESVEM trial.

Exploration of the precision of classifying sudden cardiac death. Implications for the interpretation of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

As cardiovascular clinical trials improve in sophistication and therapies target specific cardiac mechanisms of death, a more objective and precise system to identify specific cause of death is needed. Ideally, sudden cardiac death would describe patients dying of ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. In this context, we explored the precision of current sudden death classification and implications for clinical trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Deaths were analyzed in 834 patients who received an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Three arrhythmia experts used a standard prospective classification system to classify deaths into accepted categories: sudden cardiac, nonsudden cardiac, and noncardiac. New aspects to this study included analysis of autopsy results and ICD interrogation for arrhythmias at the time of death. All of the patients receiving the ICD previously had documented sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or cardiac arrest. Of the 109 subsequent deaths in the 834-patient database, 17 (16%) were classified as sudden cardiac. Compared with the nonsudden cardiac and noncardiac categories, sudden cardiac death was more often identified in outpatients (59% versus 10%) and witnessed less often (41% versus 86%; both P < .001). The autopsy information contradicted and changed the clinical perception of a "sudden cardiac death" in 7 cases (myocardial infarction [n = 1], pulmonary embolism [n = 2], cerebral infarction [n = 1], ruptured thoracic [n = 1], and abdominal aortic aneurysms [n = 2]). Interpretable ICD interrogation was available in 53% of the deaths (47% unavailable: buried, programmed off, or other technical reasons). When evaluated, only 7 of 17 "sudden deaths" were associated with ICD discharges near the time of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in a group of patients with an ICD, deaths classified as sudden cardiac frequently were not associated with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and were often noncardiac. It is possible to create a wide range of sudden cardiac death rates (more than fourfold) using the identical clinical database despite objective, prespecified criteria. Autopsy results frequently reveal noncardiac causes of clinical events simulating sudden cardiac death. ICD interrogation revealed that ICD discharges were often related to terminal arrhythmias incidental to the primary pathophysiological process leading to death.

Data-driven Decisions: The Importance of Clinical Trials in Arrhythmia Management

As a result of clinical trials, the measurement of arrhythmias has evolved over the past three decades. In the late 1960s, customary teaching was that ventricular premature depolarizations were dangerous and antiarrhythmic therapy, in hopes of reducing fatal consequences, became common place; however, following clinical trials such as CAST, IMPACT, and SWORD, we learned that, at least in postinfarct patients, arrhythmia suppression may lead to increased rather than reduced mortality. Such trials have led to a marked reduction in therapy of indiscriminate ventricular ectopy and have led to ongoing testing of specific subgroups identified as having particularly higher adverse prognostic risk. With the advent of cardiac monitoring and the confirmation that ventricular tachyarrhythmias are the most common cause for sudden death, their therapy, too, has evolved and matured, again aided by clinical trials. The ESVEM study prospectively examined the role of monitor-guided versus electrophysiologically guided drug therapy of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and confirmed that both approaches may have a role in reducing arrhythmic deaths-though the specific benefits of each technique remain somewhat unsettled. Both the ESVEM and CASCADE studies suggested that the most effective drugs for ventricular tachyarrhythmias are the class II/III drugs, sotalol and amiodarone, both appearing more effective than our older class I agents. These should now be viewed as the first-line drugs for these arrhythmias. The relative benefits of these two agents with respect to each other and to implantable cardioverter defibrillators, however, remains to be determined by further clinical trials, such as AVID and CIDS. The therapy of atrial tachyarrhythmias has similarly evolved with the aid of clinical observations. While rate control is required in all patients with atrial fibrillation, we have come to realize that the applications of antiarrhythmic drugs for the purpose of maintaining sinus rhythm must be used only selectively rather than uniformly. Both a meta-analysis by Coplen and colleagues and a report by the SPAF investigators suggested that with atrial arrhythmias, too, antiarrhythmic drug therapy may result in enhanced rather than reduced mortality in some circumstances. Additional clinical trials are needed to further elucidate the role of antiarrhythmic therapy of atrial fibrillation.

How do physicians determine when to perform an "on-drug" electrophysiology study for efficacy determination in patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias: a previously unaddressed variable that may affect efficacy rates

In patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias, efficacy rates of antiarrhythmic agents, as judged by serial electrophysiological (EP) tests, have been variable. Factors underlying this variability have been reported to include: specific drug, type of arrhythmia, type of heart disease, left ventricular function, and number of prior drug failures. We hypothesized that variability in physician practice behavior as to when a drug assessment is performed might be another important factor affecting drug efficacy. Using a survey sent to 103 electrophysiology centers we determined from the 46 respondents that this is indeed the case. Twenty-six of the 46 respondents always, 9 of 46 sometimes, and 11 of 46 did not require ectopy reduction on continuous electrocardiographic monitoring before proceeding to an EP study. The ectopy reduction required, however, varies among physicians in percentage and type. Twenty-seven of the 35 respondents who utilize rhythm monitoring also require attainment of an acceptable blood level, a prespecified minimal target dose, and/or one or more ECG interval changes prior to proceeding to EP testing. Fifteen out of 46 do not require "therapeutic" drug levels. Of 11 who don't use rhythm monitoring, 5 also don't use blood levels. The lower value for "therapeutic ranges" varied by up to 3-fold and the upper value by up to 2 1/2-fold for individual drugs. The minimum time for testing varied from 1 half-life to over 10 half-lives. Similarly, the response to failure of a submaximal dose also varied: 9% always retested at a high dose, 2% never tested at a higher dose, and 91% were inconsistent. Moreover, what was considered the maximal dose for an individual drug varied by 3- to 6-fold for most agents queried. We believe these variations in dose, time, and coassessment factors must have an influence on efficacy rates of antiarrhythmic agents.

Structural heart disease: its importance in association with antiarrhythmic drug therapy

The presence or absence of structural heart disease is an important factor to consider prior to initiating antiarrhythmic drug therapy with a class I or class III antiarrhythmic agent. An appropriate screen for structural heart disease and other associated proarrhythmic risk factors should include a complete history, physical examination, electrocardiogram (ECG), and echocardiogram in all patients; exercise test and Holter monitoring in many/most selected patients; and a signal-averaged ECG, chest x-ray, and invasive procedures only in selected/occasional patients. Whether and when to obtain the tests that are not indicated for all patients must be determined by each individual physician's practice strategy and philosophy, while keeping in mind the likelihood of finding an abnormality in a particular patient, the arrhythmia being treated, the nature of the drug to be used, and cost-effectiveness issues. Given the low incidence of proarrhythmia under most circumstances, screening for clinically unrecognized structural heart disease may appear difficult to justify in the current era of cost containment. However, due to the potential lethality of proarrhythmia, particularly in patients with structural heart disease, pre-drug assessment is prudent.

A consensus report on antiarrhythmic drug use

During the past few years, a number of new antiarrhythmic agents have become available for use in the United States, encainide has been withdrawn from use, and others have had indications for use modified. Therefore, a meeting of arrhythmia specialists was convened in an attempt to develop guidelines for antiarrhythmic therapy. The resultant discussions and guidelines presented in this article address general issues such as the most important antiarrhythmic drug attributes, as well as therapy for particular arrhythmias such as premature ventricular contractions, ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular ectopy, and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Electrophysiological testing of sinus node function: diagnostic and prognostic application-including updated information from sinus node electrograms

Sinus node function, including automaticity, conduction, and refractoriness, can be studied in the human electrophysiology laboratory. This review details the current methods used for such studies and discusses their clinical value. Of special emphasis in this article is the role of sinus node electrography in the clinical laboratory. Included also is an update of the data relating the duration of sinus node depolarization as measure on sinus node electrograms to other parameters that assess sinus node function as well as data supporting the direct relationship between the duration of the sinus node depolarization as the severity of sinus node dysfunction.

Optimum duration of transtelephonic ECG monitoring when used for transient symptomatic event detection

Transtelephonic electrocardiographic monitoring (TTM) has been used for postpacemaker follow-up study, postmyocardial infarction monitoring, and transient symptomatic event detection (TSED). For postpacemaker follow-up study, TTM is continued indefinitely. For postmyocardial infarction monitoring, TTM is continued for 1 year or more. For TSED, the appropriate duration for TTM has not yet been adequately assessed. Accordingly, the authors determined the yield, by week, of TTM for TSED. Five thousand fifty-two patients who made 20,590 calls were analyzed for this investigation. Ninety-five percent of patients making symptomatic calls or making a call in which an arrhythmia was documented did so within 5 weeks. Shorter periods would sacrifice yield, longer periods may not be cost-effective.

The duration of the sinus node depolarization on transvenous sinus node electrograms can identify sinus node dysfunction and can suggest its severity

Catheter recorded sinus node electrograms (SNE) allow visualization of sinus node depolarization (SND). The SND on a bipolar SNE is probably a composite reflecting both P cell action potentials and intranodal conduction. Reduced rate of rise, prolonged action potential duration and/or delayed intranodal conduction might each prolong the SND duration. Thus, SND duration might reflect several clinically important sinus node abnormalities and aid in the recognition of sick sinus syndrome. Moreover, the SND duration might be expected to be the most prolonged in patients with the most severe sinus node dysfunction. To test this hypothesis, we determined SND duration in 32 patients and correlated it with the presence or absence of evidence of sinus node dysfunction by ECG and/or electrophysiological (EP) studies. Seven patients had no sinus node dysfunction (group 1); 10 patients had mild sinus node dysfunction (a single abnormality of corrected sinus recovery time, sinoatrial conduction time, PCLp, or ECG) (group 2); and 15 patients had two or more abnormalities electrocardiographically and/or by EP testing (group 3). The SND duration (mean/range) was 129/95-190 msec in group 1, 151/95-225 msec in group 2, and 196/140-260 msec in group 3. In group 3, three patients who had ECG evidence of sick sinus syndrome and abnormalities on all three EP parameters, the SND duration was 230/200-260 msec. Carotid sinus massage (CSM) was found to prolong the SND duration in 5/7 patients in groups 2 and 3 where the SND could be measured both before and during CSM. CSM was necessary to allow visualization of the SND in 3/7 group 1 patients; thus their recorded values may be falsely long. The normal with a SND duration greater than 150 (190 msec) had it measured during CSM. None of the group three patients with SND duration less than msec had a prolonged CSRT or ECG evidence of sick sinus syndrome. Literature review revealed SNE recordings on 18 patients with sick sinus syndrome on which the SND duration could be measured; it was greater than or equal to 200 msec in all. Thus, the SND duration appears to reflect the presence and degree of sinus node dysfunction. Sinus node dysfunction appears unlikely if the SND duration is less than 150 msec and is likely to be severe if the SND duration is greater than 200 msec.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerance of d-sotalol in patients with refractory supraventricular tachyarrhythmias

The efficacy, safety, and electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral d-sotalol, an investigational class III antiarrhythmic agent, are not yet well characterized. We evaluated the electrophysiologic, antiarrhythmic, and hemodynamic effects of d-sotalol infusion (1.5 to 2.75 mg/kg) and of chronic oral therapy (200 to 400 mg bid) in 10 patients with chronic, paroxysmal supraventricular tachyarrhythmias refractory to 5 +/- 2 standard agents. Four patients had paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), four had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, two had atrial flutter, and one had nonparoxysmal reciprocating junctional tachycardia (NPRJT). PSVT was inducible or spontaneously present in 4 of 4 before d-sotalol. After intravenous d-sotalol PSVT was noninducible in three patients and slowed by 40% in one. Atrial fibrillation was inducible or spontaneously present in 4 of 4 before therapy. After intravenous d-sotalol, one became noninducible, and three achieved rate-slowing (the mean falling from 69 to 61 bpm). In one patient, atrial flutter became noninducible; in another, d-sotalol slowed the rate of atrial flutter by 28%. D-sotalol restored sinus rhythm in the patient with NPRJT. Intravenous d-sotalol increased the sinus cycle length; the QTc, PR, and AH intervals; and the AV nodal functional refractory period, the AV nodal effective refractory period; and the right ventricular effective refractory period significantly. The atrial effective refractory period, sinoatrial conduction time, and corrected sinus recovery time tended to increase, but did not reach statistical significance. The QRS, PA, and HV intervals did not change. Mean BP fell 13.4 +/- 9.2% after intravenous d-sotalol, but no adverse symptoms developed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Relation of baseline characteristics to suppression of ventricular arrhythmias during placebo and active antiarrhythmic therapy in patients after myocardial infarction

In the Cardiac Arrhythmia Pilot Study (CAPS), patients early (6-60 days) after acute myocardial infarction (MI) with ventricular premature complexes (VPCs) of over 10 per hour were randomized to receive, unaware, therapy with one of four antiarrhythmic drugs (n = 402) or placebo (n = 100). Treatment success was defined as 70% or more decrease in VPC rate and 90% or more decrease in VPC runs. If the first active drug was ineffective, a second drug was given. If placebo was ineffective, a second placebo was given. To determine whether or not baseline clinical characteristics predict the response to antiarrhythmic therapy, 10 baseline variables were selected for investigation: age, prior MI, time from CAPS MI to randomization, ejection fraction, baseline VPC frequency, presence of runs (greater than or equal to 3 consecutive VPCs, greater than or equal to 100 beats/min), beta-blocker therapy, digitalis therapy, MI transmurality, and MI location. At the end of the first drug treatment, apparent treatment success in patients receiving placebo was associated on univariate analysis with absence of prior MI, with trends for younger age and Q wave MI, whereas in patients receiving active therapies, higher ejection fraction and younger age were associated with better suppression. In the encainide and flecainide treatments, where the greatest response was observed, absence of prior MI, higher ejection fraction, and younger age were associated with more successful treatment. In a multivariate analysis with these variables, ejection fraction and age remained significant for all active therapies, absence of prior MI and ejection fraction remained significant in the encainide and flecainide treatments, and absence of prior MI in the placebo treatment. Few variables except ejection fraction were associated with VPC suppression during the 1-year follow-up, and only lower ejection fraction and older age related to loss of long-term suppression. Thus, there are only a few independent baseline clinical variables (notably, ejection fraction) that substantially affect antiarrhythmic drug efficacy in suppressing VPCs in patients early after MI. Some variables, however, may be associated with spontaneous arrhythmia variability, leading to an apparent (placebo) response. These findings will be helpful in designing and interpreting treatment studies in patients after MI.

Electrophysiologic evaluation of sinus node function

Sinus node dysfunction can be evaluated by invasive and noninvasive means. In this article, invasive testing of sinus node function and its clinical utility are reviewed. Sinus recovery times, sinoatrial conduction times, sinus node refractory periods, and sinus node electrograms are all reviewed in detail, with regard to both theory and practice.

Phase analysis of gated blood pool scintigraphic images to localize bypass tracts in Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome

The ability of radionuclide techniques to localize bypass tracts in patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome to sites around the atrioventricular (AV) ring using a three view triangulation method was investigated. In 17 patients with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, phase images were generated from gated blood pool scans using the first Fourier harmonic of the time-activity curve of each pixel. In addition, the difference between left and right ventricular mean phase angles was calculated for each patient and for 13 control subjects. Bypass tracts were localized to one or more sites on a 10 site grid schematically superimposed on the AV ring (Duke grid) by electrophysiologic study in all patients and by intraoperative mapping in 7 of the 17 patients. These same 10 anatomic sites were projected onto three scintigraphic views and the site of earliest ventricular phase angle was located in each view. The 10 sites around the AV ring were divided into two anatomic groups: free wall and septal/paraseptal. Phase image locations correlated with electrophysiologic locations within one grid site in 11 of 11 patients with free wall tracts and were confirmed at surgery in 5 of the 11. In five of six patients with septal/paraseptal tracts, electrophysiologic study could not localize the bypass tract to one site, whereas phase images localized two of the five as free wall adjacent to the septum, one as paraseptal and two as true posteroseptal. One posteroseptal site was confirmed at surgery. In one patient, in whom phase image analysis and electrophysiologic study showed different sites, existence of both tracts was confirmed at surgery.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)