Propafenone for malignant ventricular arrhythmia: an analysis of the literature

The effect of propafenone on premature ventricular contractions (PVC): an analysis based on heart rate dependency of PVCs

The effect of 450 mg/day propafenone for two weeks on premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) was studied in combination with an assessment of heart rate (HR) dependency of PVCs using Holter ECG monitoring in patients with more than 720 PVCs per day. The PVC-HR correlation was classified into positive (P), bidirectional (B), and flat and negative (FN) correlation groups. The positive group included only patients in whom PVC frequency increased with a heart rate increase, while the bidirectional group included patients with PVCs whose frequency increased at low heart rates and decreased at high heart rates. The FN group contained both flat (PVC frequency was almost fixed regardless of heart rate changes) and negative (PVC frequency decreased as heart rate increased) correlations. The effectiveness of propafenone was 70% in the positive group and 50% in the nonpositive group which included both bidirectional (67%) and FN (0%) groups, using a > 70% PVC reduction as a criterion of efficacy. From this, we concluded that propafenone is effective in patients showing either positive or bidirectional PVC-HR correlation. The coupling interval (CI) of PVCs was also prolonged by propafenone as a whole. The present study suggests that there are differences in the mechanism of PVC development in patients with flat or negative correlation and those with a positive or bidirectional correlation. Thus, this type of analysis contributes to an understanding of the action of antiarrhythmic agents, and may allow the prediction of their efficacy on PVCs.

Placebo-controlled evaluations of propafenone for atrial tachyarrhythmias

This review summarizes the results of placebo-controlled trials of propafenone, a class IC antiarrhythmic drug, in patients with supraventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation (AF), and atrial flutter. Success rates for cardioversion from AF or flutter to sinus rhythm of 9-93% have been obtained with intravenous propafenone. The duration of arrhythmia is an important factor in the degree of success. The use of a single oral dose has also been reported to be effective in a number of studies. Several placebo-controlled studies have confirmed the effectiveness of propafenone in the long-term suppression of both suproventricular tachycardia and AF and flutter. These reported trials have shown consistent benefit with propafenone compared with placebo in preventing arrhythmia recurrence. The adverse side effect profile for propafenone has also been reviewed with particular reference to the potential for proarrhythmia. The rate of side effects is dose-dependent and tends to be higher in patients with underlying structural heart disease. Overall propafenone has been shown to be an effective antiarrhythmic drug with an acceptable side effect profile for the acute and long-term treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias.

Intravenous Propafenone for Conversion of Atrial Fibrillation or Flutter to Sinus Rhythm: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Study

BACKGROUND: Propafenone has been claimed to be effective in converting atrial fibrillation and flutter to sinus rhythm; however, controlled clinical trials have reported variable results, and data about the safety of propafenone in the setting of heart failure are lacking. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous propafenone in converting atrial fibrillation and flutter to sinus rhythm. METHODS: Sixty patients with acute (<72 h) or chronic atrial fibrillation or flutter were included in a randomized, placebo-controlled, conditional cross-over study. Twenty eight patients, of whom 12 were in New York Heart Association class III and IV, had heart failure. Patients received intravenous propafenone (2 mg/kg in 10 minutes) and placebo subsequently at 1 hour intervals if sinus rhythm was not achieved. The patients' rhythms were continuously monitored for 1 hour and a 12-lead electrocardiogram, a 1-minute continuous rhythm strip and vital signs were recorded at baseline and at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the administration of each drug. RESULTS: Twenty of teh 59 patients (34%) treated with propafenone converted to sinus rhythm, while only 4 of the 50 patients (8%) treated with placebo converted (P <.001). Propafenone was more effective in patients with acute (<72 h) atrial fibrillation (64.5%). The conversion rate with propafenone was not significantly different from placebo in patients with atrial flutter and chronic atrial fibrillation (>72 h). Propafenone significantly decreased (P <.005 vs placebo) mean ventricular rate in nonresponders with a baseline heart rate of more than 100 beats/min. No clinically significant adverse effect occurred. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that intravenous propafenone treatment is effective for converting acute atrial fibrillation; however, it seems unlikely to be beneficial in atrial flutter and chronic atrial fibrillation. Propafenone decreases ventricular rate in nonresponders, and a single dose of propafenone is relatively safe even in moderate-to-severe heart failure.

Parenteral antiarrhythmics for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias

The acute management of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias often includes the use of parenteral antiarrhythmics. There are a number of agents currently available for this purpose. They are used to suppress inducible monomorphic ventricular tachycardia during programmed electrical stimulation, they terminate spontaneous sustained ventricular tachycardia, and prevent ventricular fibrillation in the setting of an acute myocardial infarction. Serious adverse reactions include proarrhythmia, hypotension, severe bradyarrhythmias, and precipitation of congestive heart failure. A comparative evaluation of intravenous antiarrhythmics is difficult due to inherent differences in the choice of agents for study, protocol design, patient population, defined endpoint, and serum drug levels. Likewise, the reported adverse reaction rates vary from 0.4% to 75%. To understand the difficulties in clinical decision-making in this problem area, particularly drug selection, we present here a review of pertinent clinical trials evaluating parenteral drug efficacy and adverse effects.

Cardiac electrophysiology and conduction pathway ablation

Invasive cardiac electrophysiological (EP) testing and transcatheter ablation are new methods available for the diagnosis and treatment of complex dysrhythmias. The purpose of this review is to familiarize anaesthetists with these procedures. The information presented combines a literature review with the authors' experience. This article reviews normal cardiac conduction, tachycardia pathogenesis, principles of cardiac EP study and techniques of conduction pathway ablation. The anaesthetic considerations, including the choice of anaesthetic agent, monitoring problems, drug interactions, special methods of dysrhythmia termination in the EP lab, and complications specific to these procedures, are detailed. Balanced general anaesthesia or monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) sedation with benzodiazepines, propofol and narcotics are acceptable. Several conclusions can be drawn: transcatheter ablation is an effective treatment for many reentry tachycardias; anaesthetic assistance for this procedure will increasingly be needed; anaesthesia can easily be provided without influencing accurate EP testing; overdrive pacing is the method of choice for terminating tachydysrhythmias in the EP lab.

Efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular disease. Results in patients with inducible and noninducible ventricular tachycardia

BACKGROUND

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias are the major clinical manifestation of arrhythmogenic right ventricular disease. Although antiarrhythmic therapy has been widely advocated, there is only limited information available on the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The short- and long-term efficacies of various antiarrhythmic agents were retrospectively and prospectively analyzed in 81 patients (mean age, 39 +/- 14 years; range, 16-68 years; 61.7% males) with arrhythmogenic right ventricular disease. In 42 patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia during programmed ventricular stimulation, the following efficacy rates were obtained: class Ia and Ib drugs (n = 18), 5.6%; class Ic drugs (n = 25), 12%; beta-blockers (n = 8), 0%; sotalol (n = 38), 68.4%; amiodarone (n = 13), 15.4%; verapamil (n = 5), 0%; and drug combinations (n = 26), 15.4%. Only one of the 10 patients not responding to sotalol was treated effectively by amiodarone, whereas the remaining nine patients proved to be drug refractory toward all other drugs tested (3.8 +/- 2.3 drugs, including amiodarone in five cases) and underwent nonpharmacological therapy. During a follow-up of 34 +/- 25 months, three of the 31 patients (9.7%) discharged on pharmacological therapy had nonfatal recurrences of ventricular tachycardia after 0.5, 51, and 63 months, respectively. In 39 patients with noninducible ventricular tachycardia during programmed ventricular stimulation, the following efficacy rates were observed: class Ia and Ib drugs (n = 16), 0%; class Ic agents (n = 23), 17.4%; beta-blockers (n = 7), 28.6%; sotalol (n = 35), 82.8%; amiodarone (n = 4), 25%; verapamil (n = 24), 50%; and drug combinations (n = 11), 9.1%. During a follow-up of 14 +/- 13 months, four of 33 patients (12.1%) discharged on antiarrhythmic drugs had nonfatal relapses of their clinical ventricular arrhythmia.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, in arrhythmogenic right ventricular disease, sotalol proved to be highly effective in patients with inducible as well as noninducible ventricular tachycardia. Patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia not responding to sotalol are likely to not respond to other antiarrhythmic drugs and should be considered for nonpharmacological therapy without further drug testing. Amiodarone did not prove to be more effective than sotalol and may not be an alternative because of frequent side effects during long-term therapy, especially in young patients. Verapamil and beta-blockers were effective in a considerable number of patients with noninducible ventricular tachycardia and may be a therapeutic alternative in this subgroup. Class I agents appear to be rarely effective in the treatment of both inducible and noninducible ventricular tachycardia in arrhythmogenic right ventricular disease.