Edward V. Platia

Intravenous sotalol for the termination of supraventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation and flutter: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Sotalol is an antiarrhythmic agent with combined beta-blocking and class III antiarrhythmic properties. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of sotalol in terminating supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), atrial fibrillation (AFib), and atrial flutter (AFl). Ninety-three patients with spontaneous or induced SVT (n = 45) or AF (AFib or AFl; n = 48) with a ventricular rate of > or = 120 beats/min were studied. In the first phase, the double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or intravenous (i.v.) sotalol, 1.0 or 1.5 mg/kg. If SVT or AF did not convert to sinus rhythm or if the ventricular rate did not slow to < 100 beats/min within 30 minutes, patients then entered the second phase, the open-label phase, which also lasted 30 minutes, and were given 1.5 mg/kg iv sotalol. In the SVT group, during the double-blind phase conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 2 (14%) of 14 of patients who received placebo, 10 (67%) of 15 who received sotalol, 1.0 mg/kg (p < 0.05 vs placebo), and 10 (67%) of 15 who received 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (p < 0.05 vs placebo); during the open-label phase, 1.5 mg/kg i.v. sotalol converted 7 (41%) of 17 of patients. In the AF group, during the double-blind phase conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 2 (14%) of 14 of patients who received placebo, 2 (11%) of 18 who received 1.0 mg/kg sotalol (p not significant [NS] vs placebo), and 2 (13%) of 16 who received 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (p = NS vs placebo); in these groups, a > 20% reduction of ventricular rate without conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 0 (0%) of 14, 13 (72%) of 18 (p < 0.05 vs placebo), and 12 (75%) of 16 of patients (p < 0.05 vs placebo), respectively; during the open-label phase, 1.5 mg/kg i.v. sotalol converted 7 (30%) of 23 of patients. The most common adverse events were hypotension and dyspnea. During the double-blind phase they occurred in 10% of patients who received placebo, 9% of those who received 1.0 mg/kg i.v. sotalol (p = NS vs placebo), and 10% of those who received 1.5 mg/kg i.v. sotalol (p = NS vs placebo). Most of these events were mild to moderate, but all were transient and clinically manageable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation

OBJECTIVES We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation. BACKGROUND Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown. METHODS In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock. RESULTS First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 +/- 1 vs. 33 +/- 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance < 70 ohms (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance > or = 70 ohms (99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.

Treatment of Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias with Endocardial Resection and Implantation of the Automatic Cardioverter-Defibrillator

Although ventricular resection guided by endocardial mapping has been a successful treatment for drug-refractory ventricular arrhythmias, 20 to 30 percent of patients still have postoperative sustained ventricular tachycardia or sudden death. To improve the outcome of the procedure, we implanted an automatic cardioverter-defibrillator in conjunction with endocardial resection in 28 patients, all of whom had had previous myocardial infarctions and between one and five cardiac arrests. There were three perioperative deaths. During follow-up of 8 to 51 months (mean, 25), 4 of the 25 survivors had recurrences of hypotensive ventricular tachycardia, which in all instances were automatically terminated by the implanted device. One patient, whose automatic cardioverter-defibrillator was not functional, died suddenly. We conclude that patients undergoing mapping-directed endocardial resection can be provided with additional protection against recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias or sudden death by implantation of an automatic cardioverter-defibrillator.

Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Is early implantation cost-effective?

The evaluation of survivors of sudden cardiac death with serial electrophysiologic studies involves a lengthy and expensive hospitalization, especially when an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is ultimately necessary. The cost efficacy of this conventional approach was therefore compared with direct implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator after the first electrophysiologic study. Thirty-two survivors of sudden death who had inducible ventricular tachycardia during their initial electrophysiologic study underwent serial drug trials. At discharge 12 (37%) were taking an antiarrhythmic drug found to prevent induction of ventricular tachycardia and 20 underwent cardioverter-defibrillator implantation after serial drug trials proved ineffective. The average length of hospitalization for this group that had undergone serial drug testing was 20.2 +/- 9.3 days at an average cost of

Intravenous diltiazem for termination of reentrant supraventricular tachycardia: a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

48,900 +/-

Electrophysiologic effects of a novel selective adenosine A1 agonist (CVT-510) on atrioventricular nodal conduction in humans.

31,600. Seven survivors of sudden death had no inducible ventricular tachycardia during their initial electrophysiologic study and underwent direct cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Their average length of hospitalization was 12.6 +/- 6.2 days at an average cost of

Effect of Early Diagnosis and Treatment With Percutaneous Lead Extraction on Survival in Patients With Cardiac Device Infections

40,400 +/-

Reuse of pacing catheters: a survey of safety and efficacy.

8,300. It is concluded that automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation as an early intervention is not more costly and indeed may be cost-effective compared with therapy guided by serial electrophysiologic testing. As antitachycardia devices become more versatile, long lived and easier to implant, earlier implantation is likely to compare even more favorably with drug therapy.

Pacemaker syndrome in activity-responsive VVI pacing

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous diltiazem, 54 patients with inducible sustained supraventricular tachycardia received diltiazem, 0.25 mg/kg or 0.25 mg/kg, followed by 0.35 mg/kg body weight, or placebo in a double-blind, randomized study. Twenty patients had atrioventricular (AV) node reentrant tachycardia, whereas 34 had orthodromic AV reciprocating tachycardia associated with the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Supraventricular tachycardia was terminated in 24 (86%) of 28 patients given intravenous diltiazem compared with 5 (19%) of 26 given placebo (p = 0.0000014). Nineteen (95%) of 20 patients initially given placebo had termination of supraventricular tachycardia after receiving diltiazem. Overall, 43 (90%) of 48 patients receiving intravenous diltiazem had conversion of supraventricular tachycardia to sinus rhythm; the median time to tachycardia termination was 2 min after initiation of a 2 min diltiazem infusion. All 20 patients (100%) with AV node reentrant tachycardia treated with diltiazem had conversion of tachycardia to sinus rhythm as did 26 (81%) of 30 patients with AV reciprocating tachycardia treated with diltiazem. Diltiazem prolonged refractoriness and slowed conduction of the AV node and thereby provided antiarrhythmic action to cause tachycardia termination. Diltiazem had no effect on the electrophysiologic properties of accessory AV connections. Adverse effects were seen in 3 (6%) of the 48 patients given diltiazem. For paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia initiated in the electrophysiology laboratory, it is concluded that intravenous diltiazem is safe and very effective for acute tachycardia termination when the AV node is part of the reentrant circuit.

The Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study: approaches to control rate in atrial fibrillation.

Background: CVT-510, N-(3(R)-tetrahydrofuranyl)-6-aminopurine riboside, is a selective A,-adenosine receptor agonist with potential potent antiarrhythmic effects in tachycardias involving the atrioventricular (AV) node. This study, the first in humans, was designed to determine the effects of CVT-5 10 on AV nodal conduction and hemodynamics. Methods and Results: Patients in sinus rhythm with normal AV nodal function at electrophysiologic study (n = 32) received a single intravenous bolus of CVT-5 10. AH and HV intervals were measured during sinus rhythm and during atrial pacing at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the bolus. Increasing doses of CVT-510 (0.3 to 10 pg/kg) caused a dosedependent increase in the AH interval. At 1 minute, a dose of 10,ug/kg increased the AH interval during sinus rhythm from 93 ± 23 msec to 114 ± 37 msec, p = 0.01 and from 114 ± 31 msec to 146 ± 44 msec during atrial pacing at 600 msec, p = 0.003). The AH interval returned to baseline by 20 minutes. CVT-510 at doses of 0.3 to 10,ug/kg had no effect on sinus rate, HV interval, or systemic blood pressure, and was not associated with serious adverse effects. At doses of 15 and 30 pg/kg, CVT-510 produced transient second/third degree AV heart block in all four patients treated. One of these patients also had a prolonged sedative effect that was reversed with aminophylline. Conclusions: CVT-510 promptly prolongs AV nodal conduction and does not affect sinus rate or blood pressure. Selective stimulation of the A,-adenosine receptor by CVT-510 may be useful for immediate control of heart rate in atrial fibrillation/flutter and to convert paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia to sinus rhythm, while avoiding vasodilatation mediated by the A2-adenosine receptor, as well as the vasodepressor and negative inotropic effects associated with 3-adrenergic receptor blockade and/or calcium channel blockers.