Effects of flecainide on defibrillation threshold in pigs

Interactions of antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable devices in controlling ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have proven highly successful in the treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Despite the efficacy of the ICD in terminating ventricular arrhythmias, antiarrhythmic drugs remain an important adjunct to ICD therapy. The use of antiarrhythmic drug therapy in combination with the ICD is synergistic in terms of beneficial effects, but also has the potential for some adverse interactions. Knowledge and recognition of these potential interactions is important for any physician managing patients with an ICD. This review summarizes the benefits and adverse effects of ICD in combination with antiarrhythmic drug therapy, and provides guidelines to ensure safe application of this hybrid therapy.

ICD-antiarrhythmic drug and ICD-pacemaker interactions

Antiarrhythmic drugs and separate bradycardia pacing systems are prescribed commonly in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on ICD function and adverse interactions between ICDs and pacemakers have been documented. The effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients has not been well assessed. Most studies have been performed in animal models in which cardiac function was normal and drug doses were supraphysiologic. In addition, most studies have utilized monophasic defibrillation shock waveforms and epicardial lead systems. Despite the lack of clinical data applicable to current defibrillation systems, it appears that chronic amiodarone administration causes a significant DFT increase. In addition, antiarrhythmic drugs can influence antitachycardia pacing and tachycardia sensing. Defibrillation shocks can cause transient failure of pacemaker sensing and pacing, and cause spurious pacemaker reprogramming. Pacemaker function can result in ICD oversensing, leading to inappropriate therapy, or cause ICD undersensing, potentially resulting in failure to deliver therapy during ventricular fibrillation. The susceptibility of an ICD to undersensing appears related to the amplitude of the pacing stimulus artifact recorded by the ICD rate-sensing circuit and to the characteristics of the fibrillation electrogram. Preliminary data suggest that undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by current ICDs is an unlikely event.

Can a class III antiarrhythmic drug improve electrical defibrillation efficacy during ventricular fibrillation?

OBJECTIVES

We tested whether a new class III drug (MS-551) administered during ventricular fibrillation (VF) could decrease the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in anesthetized canine hearts.

BACKGROUND

Pretreatment with class III antiarrhythmic agents is known to enhance electrical defibrillation efficacy.

METHODS

In a preliminary study (n = 10), we ascertained the validity of DFT determination by a sequence of incremental defibrillation shocks in a single fibrillation/defibrillation episode. We then compared the DFTs after 130 s of VF with and without administration of MS-551 (2 mg/kg body weight) at 10 s after the onset of VF in 12 open chest dogs and 8 closed chest dogs.

RESULTS

MS-551 decreased the DFT in both experimental models (open chest [mean +/- SD]: from 416 +/- 106 to 318 +/- 92 V, p < 0.05; closed chest: from 714 +/- 75 to 615 +/- 112 V, p < 0.05). The change (delta) in DFT in each heart was inversely correlated with the drug-induced prolongation of VF cycle length before the defibrillation attempt (delta DFT vs. delta VF cycle length 10 s before the first discharge: r = -0.58 and -0.81, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

MS-551 given after the induction of VF improved defibrillation efficacy. Class III antiarrhythmic agents deserve consideration when VF is resistant to electrical defibrillation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Mechanism of antiarrhythmic drug-induced changes in defibrillation threshold: role of potassium and sodium channel conductance

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine which ion current predominantly affects defibrillation outcomes by using specific pharmacologic probes (lidocaine [a sodium channel blocking agent] and cesium [an outward potassium channel blocking agent]) in 26 swine.

BACKGROUND

The effect of a drug on sodium or potassium channel conductance, or both, may affect defibrillation threshold values. However, it is unknown which ion channel predominates.

METHODS

Each pig was randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups with two treatment phases: group 1 = placebo (D5W) in treatment phase I followed by placebo plus cesium in treatment phase II (n = 6); group 2 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus placebo (n = 7); group 3 = lidocaine followed by lidocaine plus cesium (n = 7); group 4 = placebo followed by placebo plus placebo (n = 6). Defibrillation threshold values and electrocardiographic measurements were obtained at baseline and at treatment phases I and II.

RESULTS

Lidocaine increased defibrillation threshold values from baseline by 71% in group 2 (p = 0.02) and by 92% in group 3 (p < 0.01). There were no changes in defibrillation threshold values from baseline to D5W in groups 1 and 4. When D5W was added to lidocaine in group 2 and D5W in group 4, there were no significant changes in defibrillation threshold values. However, when cesium was added to lidocaine in group 3, the elevated defibrillation threshold values (mean +/- SD) returned to baseline values (from 15.7 +/- 3.46 to 7.55 +/- 3.19 J, p < 0.01). Cesium added to D5W in group 1 also significantly reduced defibrillation threshold values from 7.10 +/- 1.27 to 4.14 +/- 1.75 J (p < 0.01). The effect of cesium on defibrillation threshold values was similar between groups 1 and 3, regardless of lidocaine, such that these values were reduced by 40 +/- 14% and 51 +/- 18%, respectively (p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Cesium, through potassium blockade, reverses lidocaine-induced elevation in defibrillation threshold values. The magnitude of defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to lidocaine was similar to the defibrillation threshold reduction when cesium was added to placebo. Thus, inhibiting outward potassium conductance and prolonging repolarization decreases defibrillation threshold values independent of sodium channel blockade.

Effects of flecainide, encainide, and clofilium on ventricular refractory period extension by transcardiac shocks

OBJECTIVE

The mechanisms by which pharmacological agents alter electrical defibrillation are not fully understood. It has been proposed that, in addition to directly stimulating tissue, defibrillation may involve refractory period extension (RPE) produced by the shock. Accordingly, pharmacological agents might modulate defibrillation by altering RPE. This study examined the effect of Class I and Class III antiarrhythmic agents on RPE by transcardiac shocks.

METHODS

In four groups of pentobarbital anesthetized dogs, RPE was measured during rapid ventricular pacing before and after administration of either the Class I agents flecainide (n = 7) or encainide (n = 7), the Class III agent clofilium (n = 7), or vehicle (n = 5). Measurements included QRS duration during sinus rhythm and a conduction time, QTC interval and refractory period, and RPE for 4- to 10-V/cm shocks delivered 20-80 ms before the end of the tissue absolute refractory period. For the 6-V/cm shocks, the interval after the shock during which tissue remained refractory (RIAS) was also computed.

RESULTS

Drugs affected QRS duration, conduction time, QTC, and refractory period ( without shocks) in accordance with their anticipated Class I and Class III actions. Without drugs, significant RPE was observed in all animals for all shocks delivered 40 ms or less before the end of the refractory period. Clofilium, encainide, and flecainide had a tendency to increase RPE but only clofilium produced a significant increase. For 6-V/cm shocks with different timings, the minimum RIAS was found to be approximately 43 ms, and occurred for shocks given 20-30 ms before the end of the refractory period.

CONCLUSIONS

At drug dosages that produced moderate Class III ( approximately equal to 15%) or strong Class I (approximately equal to 35%) effects, only the Class III agent significantly increased RPE and RIAS. Thus, in addition to altering tissue excitability, the effect of antiarrhythmic agents to increase RPE and the minimum RIAS may help explain their influence on defibrillation threshold.

Differential effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold with monophasic versus biphasic shock waveforms

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation waveforms and antiarrhythmic drugs have disparate effects on myocardial excitability and refractoriness, making it likely that antiarrhythmic drugs will interact with one waveform differently than with another. The aim of the present study was to determine if the increase in defibrillation threshold (DFT) induced by lidocaine is similar for electrical shocks with monophasic and biphasic waveforms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-six pentobarbital-anesthetized farm-raised pigs were instrumented with pacing catheters and epicardial defibrillation electrodes. Each pig was assigned to one of four groups: (1) monophasic shock waveform and placebo (5% dextrose in water [D5W]) (n = 7), (2) monophasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7), (3) biphasic shock waveform and placebo (D5W) (n = 5), or (4) biphasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7). DFT was measured at baseline and subsequently during treatment (D5W or lidocaine). In the monophasic waveform groups, DFT increased from baseline in response to lidocaine by 92% (P < .0001), whereas DFT values in response to D5W did not change. In the biphasic waveform groups, DFT values did not change from baseline in response to lidocaine (P = NS), whereas DFT values from baseline in response to D5W significantly decreased by 29% (P = .04). In the monophasic waveform groups, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was significantly different than the change from baseline in response to D5W (92 +/- 29% versus -0.5 +/- 29%, respectively) (P < .0002). In the biphasic waveform groups, however, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was similar to the change from baseline in response to D5W (-5.66 +/- 15% versus -29 +/- 17%, respectively) (P = .48). Furthermore, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine differed significantly between monophasic and biphasic waveform groups (92 +/- 29% versus -5.66 +/- 15%) (P < .0002), whereas the change from baseline in response to D5W did not differ between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (-0.5 +/- 29% versus -29 +/- 17%) (P = .34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo groups, DFT values increased during lidocaine treatment to a much greater degree in the monophasic waveform group than in the biphasic waveform group receiving lidocaine. These data support our hypothesis that antiarrhythmic drugs can affect the defibrillation efficacy of monophasic waveforms differently than that of biphasic waveforms.