Control Of Ventricular Response Research Articles

Prophylactic amiodarone vs dronedarone for prevention of perioperative arrhythmias in offpump coronary artery bypass grafting: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of prophylactic dronedarone and amiodarone in prevention of arrhythmias during and following off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). This randomized, controlled, double-blinded, parallel-group study was carried out on 36 adult male patients aged 30-70 years, with modified Parsonnet score 0-10 undergoing offpump coronary artery bypass grafting. After obtaining approval from the institutional ethics committee and informed consent, the patients were randomly allocated to two equal groups (n=18). In one group, patients were given inj. amiodarone 3mg/kg in 100ml of normal saline prior to skin incision intravenously over 20 minutes. In the second group patients received tablet dronedarone 400mg orally twice daily, commencing three days prior to the date of surgery. Patients in the amiodarone group received placebo tablet while patients in the dronedarone group received placebo infusion for the sake of blinding. The frequency and profile of arrhythmias intraoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively were studied. Intraoperative arrhythmias occurred in 50% of patients receiving amiodarone and 16.67% of patients receiving dronedarone. Maximum ventricular rate during atrial fibrillation was significantly lower in the dronedarone group (121 beats per min) than in the amiodarone group (168 beats per min). The study concludes that dronedarone appears to be at least as effective as amiodarone in prophylaxis of intraoperative and postoperative arrhythmias in patients undergoing OPCAB, with a better control of ventricular response.

Dronedarone

Amiodarone is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug for maintaining sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. Extra-cardiac side effects have been a limiting factor, especially during chronic use, and may offset its benefits. Dronedarone is a noniodinated benzofuran derivative of amiodarone that has been developed for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. Similar to amiodarone, dronedarone is a potent blocker of multiple ion currents, including the rapidly activating delayed-rectifier potassium current, the slowly activating delayed-rectifier potassium current, the inward rectifier potassium current, the acetylcholine activated potassium current, peak sodium current, and L-type calcium current, and exhibits antiadrenergic effects. It has been studied for maintenance of sinus rhythm and control of ventricular response during episodes of atrial fibrillation. Dronedarone reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation, but may be unsafe in those with severe heart failure. This article will review evidence of safety and effectiveness of dronedarone in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Clinical assessment of clonidine in the treatment of new-onset rapid atrial fibrillation: A prospective, randomized clinical trial

Purpose The role of digoxin and verapamil in the control of ventricular response in rapid atrial fibrillation is well established. This study investigates how clonidine compares with these standard therapies in rate control for new-onset rapid atrial fibrillation. We set out to test the hypothesis that clonidine effectively reduces heart rate in patients with new-onset rapid atrial fibrillation. Subjects and Methods Forty patients were seen in the emergency department with new-onset (≤24 hours’ duration), stable, rapid atrial fibrillation. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either clonidine, digoxin, or verapamil. Changes in heart rate and blood pressure over 6 hours, as well as frequency of conversion to sinus rhythm were recorded and analyzed. Results The mean reduction in heart rate over 6 hours was 44.4 beats/min (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.4-60.4 beats/min) in the clonidine group, 52.1 beats/min (95% CI 40.8-63.4 beats/min) in the digoxin group, and 41.8 beats/min (95% CI 22.5-61.0 beats/min) in the verapamil group. Analysis of variance of the heart rate changes in the 3 groups after 6 hours was not significant (P =.55). At 6 hours, 7 of 12 clonidine patients, 8 of 15 digoxin patients, and 7 of 13 verapamil patients remained in atrial fibrillation (P =.962 on χ2). Conclusion Clonidine controls ventricular rate in new-onset atrial fibrillation with an efficacy comparable to that of standard agents. (Am Heart J 2001;142:e3.)

Unexpected instant death following successful coronary artery bypass graft surgery (and other clinical settings): atrial fibrillation, quinidine, procainamide, et cetera, and instant death.

Primum non nocere. Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs commonly following coronary artery bypass graft surgery, although new onset atrial fibrillation in this setting is usually transient. When AF reverts or is converted to sinus rhythm it is unlikely to recur, whether or not the patient takes preventive medication. As no benefit (and sometimes increased risk) associated with reduced mortality or morbidity in this setting has been reported for antiarrhythmic agents, standard treatment should consist of observation or control of ventricular response with an appropriate agent until AF relapses to sinus rhythm. If an antiarrhythmic agent, especially a class I agent, is used because of persistent or recurrent AF in the early postoperative period, heart rhythm should be monitored as long as the class I agent is administered and treatment initiated if an undersirable rhythm develops. Atrial fibrillation in other clinical settings in patients with structural heart disease presents a more difficult management problem. Class I agents are reported to be associated with an increased risk of death, despite an efficacious effect of maintaining sinus rhythm. Amiodarone is reported to be well tolerated with respect to the cardiovascular system, but unacceptable noncardiac effects are reported. A safe amiodarone-like agent is greatly needed. Atrial fibrillation in patients with no structural heart disease is not discussed in this presentation.

Control of rapid ventricular response by radiofrequency catheter modification of the atrioventricular node in patients with medically refractory atrial fibrillation.

Pharmacological control of rapid ventricular response to atrial fibrillation may be difficult in some patients. Alternative treatments, including curative surgery or atrioventricular (AV) node ablation with pacemaker implantation, have significant potential morbidity. In view of evidence that dual AV nodal physiology may exist in a significant percentage of the population, even in those without AV nodal reentrant tachycardia, we postulated that control of ventricular response might be achieved by radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation in the region of the AV nodal slow pathway with its short refractory period. Ten patients underwent attempted AV node modification using a 4-mm-tipped electrode catheter positioned in the middle or posterior septum, between the His bundle and coronary sinus ostium on the tricuspid valve annulus. RF energy was applied at 16 to 30 W for up to 60 seconds, until average ventricular response fell below 100 beats per minute. Reduction of maximal ventricular response below 120 beats per minute was confirmed with atropine 1 mg IV. If required, additional ablations were performed progressively more posteriorly up to the coronary sinus ostium. Patients with successful AV node modification were discharged off AV node-blocking drugs and followed in the clinic at regular intervals. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory ECG recordings and/or treadmill stress tests were obtained before and after ablation for statistical comparison of maximum ventricular rate. Resting average ventricular rate was determined during electrophysiology study before and after ablation. In 7 of 10 patients (70%), maximum ventricular rate was reduced from a mean of 164 +/- 12 to 123 +/- 16 beats per minute (P < .01) and average ventricular rate from a mean of 128 +/- 11 to 83 +/- 10 beats per minute after ablation. Mean minimum ventricular rate was 54 +/- 11 beats per minute after ablation. These 7 patients have remained symptom free from rapid ventricular response for a mean of 14 +/- 8 months (range, 1 to 22). Three remain off all AV node-blocking drugs, 3 remain on digoxin alone, which was previously ineffective, and 1 remains on a beta-blocker for angina. In the 3 patients who did not respond to AV node modification, complete AV node ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation was performed in 2 and DC cardioversion after amiodarone loading was performed in 1. RF catheter modification of AV node conduction is effective in controlling rapid ventricular response to atrial fibrillation in a significant percentage of medically refractory patients. A possible mechanism of RF modification of AV node conduction is AV nodal slow pathway ablation. Large-scale clinical trials will be needed to determine the overall efficacy and safety of this technique.

Reversible protective effect of propafenone or flecainide during atrial fibrillation in patients with an accessory atrioventricular connection

In 34 patients with a symptomatic accessory atrioventricular connection the reversible protective effect of orally administered flecainide (300 mg/day) and of propafenone (900 mg/day) in control of ventricular response during atrial fibrillation by exercise was assessed. The study consisted of three sections of 1 week each: an initial treatment phase during which propafenone or flecainide was administered, a drug-free phase, and a period of crossover to treatment with the other drug. At the end of each phase, transesophageal stimulation was performed during physical exercise to induce atrial fibrillation episodes: the goal was to control the persistence of drug effectiveness. At rest, the mean and shortest R-R interval during the period of induced atrial fibrillation in patients who were treated with flecainide or propafenone increased significantly as compared with the drug-free period. On the other hand, at maximum exercise levels no difference in both shortest and mean R-R intervals during atrial fibrillation was observed between patients who were treated with flecainide and those who were treated with propafenone, as well as between flecainide treatment and the drug-free period, whereas a slightly significant difference persisted with propafenone treatment ( p < 0.05). In addition, at maximum exercise levels no significant difference in the number of preexcited QRS complexes among the three treatments was noted. The data from this study suggests that a reversible protective effect against rapid ventricular rate as the result of an episode of atrial fibrillation exists during exercise in patients with a symptomatic accessory atrioventricular connection who are treated with flecainide or propafenone.

The pharmacologic treatment of atrial fibrillation

The pharmacologic treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is aimed at controlling the ventricular response, restoring sinus rhythm, and preventing or delaying relapses. In the control of ventricular response, digitalis maintains a primary role when the arrhythmia is accompanied by heart failure. In ischemic, hypertensive, and degenerative (whose number is increasing at present) cardiopathies without evident ventricular dilatation, treatments with calcium antagonists (such as verapamil, gallopamil, or diltiazem) or beta-blocking agents must be preferred. In order to control the ventricular response in patients with chronic AF during physical activity, the association of digitalis with beta-blocking agents or calcium antagonists seems to provide satisfactory results. The drugs of the IC class, especially flecainide, represent a certain therapeutical progress in the restoration of sinus rhythm in the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation affecting subjects without evident alterations of ventricular function, particularly in subjects with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, with forms of vagal origin, or with atrial fibrillation alone. A therapeutic combination of digitalis and quinidine may produce resolution of the arrhythmia in the presence of altered ventricular function or when AF is of an uncertain onset. In patients with hypertensive, ischemic, and/or degenerative cardiopathy without evident ventricular or advanced heart failure, the verapamil-quinidine association may also be effective and even quicker. The combination of drugs of the I and III class for restoration of the sinus rhythm in particularly resistant forms of AF without evident structural heart alterations is promising but must be verified in a greater number of patients. In the prevention of relapses amiodarone appears to have the widest spectrum of advantages from an electrophysiologic point of view; however, because of its many side effects, amiodarone represents a late therapeutical choice. The promising results obtained with flecainide are disputed by the results of the CAST, which limit the possibilities of using this drug to a low number of cases (W.P.W. syndrome, AF of vagal origin, atrial fibrillation alone). In the past, quinidine and disopyramide have been the drugs most widely used in the prophylaxis of AF. These drugs have a similar efficacy, and both of them provided some positive results. However, because of untoward side effects (especially for quinidine) during chronic treatment, the use of these drugs has been questioned. Perhaps in the majority of patients, the less dangerous therapeutic choice after the termination of the fibrillation is a combination of drugs slowly down AV node activity (digitalis or calcium antagonists and beta blockers) with class IA antiarrhythmics.

Clinical use of digitalis materials.

Digitalis is a drug widely used in modern medicine for the control of ventricular response in atrial fibrillation and the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF). Recently, the use of digitalis for the treatment of CHF in patients in sinus rhythm has become quite controversial. The findings of several clinical studies suggest a small but definite hemodynamic or clinical improvement in patients treated with digitalis. These effects are limited by the onset of toxicity, which is at least partially mediated via the central nervous system. If the inotropic effect of the drug could be separated from the central nervous system effect, much higher doses of digitalis could be tolerated and presumably a greater therapeutic effect could be obtained.