Effects of flecainide on atrial electrophysiology in the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome

Flecainide: Electrophysiological properties, clinical indications, and practical aspects

Over the last 35 years, flecainide proved itself one of the most commonly used arrhythmic drugs, expanding its original indication for ventricular arrhythmias and results nowadays as the cornerstone of the rhythm control strategy in atrial fibrillation management of patients without structural heart disease. While the increased mortality associated with flecainide in the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) still casts his shadow over flecainide clinical profile, this compound has subsequently demonstrated safe and is now used successfully for a plethora of indications, including pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, cathecolaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and ventricular pre-excitation. Moreover, the recent marketing of a controlled release formulation, along with the intravenous and immediate release formulations, increased the armamentarium to the clinician's disposal while improving patients' compliance. In the present paper, we offer a comprehensive review of the anti-arrhythmic effects of flecainide, detailing its electrophysiological properties, its effects on the conduction system, its clinical use and the major side effects and contraindications in clinical practice.

Electrocardiographic manifestations: wide complex tachycardia due to accessory pathway

Tachycardia with a wide QRS complex is usually due to ventricular tachycardia (VT), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) with aberrant intraventricular conduction, or an accessory pathway-mediated dysrhythmia. The most common type of accessory pathway causing a wide complex tachycardia is the atrioventricular bypass tract. Distinguishing the accessory pathway-mediated tachycardia from VT or SVT with aberrancy is often difficult, but has important clinical consequences. This article will review the diagnosis of wide complex tachycardia due to an accessory pathway and its related management in the emergent setting.

Frequency-dependent electrophysiological effects of flecainide, nifekalant and d,l-sotalol on the human atrium

To compare the effects of class Ic and III antiarrhythmic agents on the termination and prevention of atrial fibrillation, the present study investigated the use-dependent electrophysiological effects of flecainide, nifekalant and d,l-sotalol on the human atrium. Flecainide significantly prolonged effective refractory period (ERP), intra-atrial conduction time (IACT) and monophasic action potential duration (MAPD), and its effects on ERP and IACT were use-dependent. Nifekalalant significantly prolonged ERP and MAPD, and these effects were reverse use-dependent; however, there was no significant change in IACT. d,l-Sotalol significantly prolonged MAPD and the effect was reverse use-dependent. It significantly prolonged ERP, but the effect was not reverse use-dependent. d,l-Sotalol increased IACT in a use-dependent manner. Thus, for atrial fibrillation, class Ic antiarrhythmic agents might be more effective in termination and class III antiarrhythmic agents might be more effective in prevention.

A randomized comparison of flecainide versus verapamil in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. The Flecainide Multicenter Investigators Group

Reentrant paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. Verapamil and flecainide have both been successfully used as chronic oral therapy to prevent PSVT recurrences. This open-label, randomized, multicenter study was designed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of verapamil (median dose, 240 mg/day) versus flecainide (median dose, 200 mg/day) in patients with frequent and symptomatic attacks of PSVT (other than atrial fibrillation or flutter). A total of 121 patients receiving flecainide (n = 63) or verapamil (n = 58) were followed for 8.1 +/- 5.1 and 7.5 +/- 5.4 months, respectively. Response was judged clinically as effective or not by the treating physician. By life table analysis, 11% discontinued flecainide and 19% discontinued verapamil for inefficacy at 1 year (difference not significant). Both groups showed a marked reduction in the frequency of attacks of PSVT. Before therapy, 71% of flecainide patients and 73% of verapamil patients had > or = 2 attacks per month. During therapy, 86% of all flecainide patient-months and 73% of all verapamil patient-months occurred with 0 or 1 attack; 19 (30%) patients on flecainide completed the trial ( > 270 days) without symptomatic attacks versus 7 (13%) of the patients on verapamil (p = 0.026). Both drugs were well tolerated; 19% of the flecainide group discontinued primarily because of adverse effects, compared with 24% discontinuing verapamil for this reason (difference not significant). Both flecainide and verapamil are effective and well tolerated for the prevention of recurrences of PSVT. For patients in whom radiofrequency ablation procedures cannot be performed or are not indicated, either therapy is a reasonable choice for long-term prophylaxis.

Efficacy and safety of long-term oral flecainide acetate in patients with responsive supraventricular tachycardia

In 102 patients with inducible supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), 56 women and 46 men aged 20-86 (mean, 52) years, underwent electrophysiologic study. SVTs observed at electrophysiologic study were atrial flutter or atrial fibrillation (32%), the "slow-fast" form of atrioventricular (AV) nodal reentrant tachycardia (45%), orthodromic AV reentrant tachycardia (25%), and atrial tachycardia (9%). More than 1 SVT occurred in some patients. Spontaneous symptomatic SVT frequency prior to oral flecainide varied from 3/day to 1/3 months (mean, 3/month). At electrophysiologic study and during SVT, intravenous flecainide, 2 mg/kg body weight, was given at an infusion rate of 10 mg/min up to a maximum dose of 150 mg. Patients were commenced on oral flecainide if SVT termination occurred during intravenous flecainide administration and if reinitiation was not possible after the total dose of flecainide had been given. In patients with AV nodal reentrant tachycardia and AV reentrant tachycardia further criteria for commencing oral flecainide were SVT termination by ventricular-atrial conduction block and persistent ventricular-atrial block after intravenous flecainide administration. Initial oral flecainide dosage was determined by assessing ability to reinitiate SVT after 50 mg, 100 mg, and the total dose of intravenous flecainide had been given. Eighty-nine patients (87%) remained free of symptomatic SVT over a mean follow-up period of 3.9 years (range, 3 months to 6.5 years). Two thirds were still taking the original dosage of flecainide and the rest were SVT-free on a higher dosage. Oral dosages ranged from 50 to 300 mg/day (median dosage, 100 mg twice daily) Nine patients experienced minor side effects, including, lethargy, dizziness, headache, and blurred vision. There were no deaths and no reports of major proarrhythmic events or other major adverse effects.

Flecainide

Flecainide is a Class IC antiarrhythmic agent whose primary electrophysiologic effect is a slowing of conduction in a wide range of cardiac tissues. It is well absorbed and effective in suppressing isolated premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) or nonsustained ventricular arrhythmia but has only a modest efficacy when electrophysiologic testing is used as an endpoint. Its adverse effect on mortality in the CAST trial suggested a propensity to proarrhythmia--a phenomenon to which the Class IC agents appear particularly prone. Despite the applicability of the CAST study only to patients with a prior myocardial infarction, there has been a shift away from flecainide in ventricular arrhythmia, but the low noncardiac side effect profile of the agent allows for its continued use in a wide variety of supraventricular arrhythmias.

Antiarrhythmic drug classifications and the clinician: a gambit in the land of chaos

Several classifications of antiarrhythmic drugs have appeared and all suffer considerable limitations. Recently a Task Force of the Working Group on Arrhythmias of the European Society of Cardiology proposed a novel classification of antiarrhythmic drugs (the so-called Sicilian Gambit) based on their action on the most vulnerable parameter of an arrhythmogenic mechanism. The present article attempts a critical reappraisal of the antiarrhythmic drug actions and the relationship of vulnerable parameters with cellular mechanisms such as ion channels. The clinical applicability of these concepts, the implications of the new classification in the pharmacologic therapy of arrhythmias, and its potential limitations are discussed.