Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1996; 27:1534-1542
© 1996 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ujhelyi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Markel, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ujhelyi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Markel, M.

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

MR Ujhelyi, M Schur, T Frede, MB Bottorff, M Gabel, and ML Markel

University of Georgia College of Pharmacy and Medical College of Georgia School of Medicine, Augusta 30912-2390, USA.

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.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.Home page
M. R. Ujhelyi, J. J. Sims, and A. W. Miller
High-dose lidocaine does not affect defibrillation efficacy: implications for defibrillation mechanisms
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, April 1, 1998; 274(4): H1113 - H1120.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J CARDIOVASC PHARMACOL THERHome page
A. P. Winecoff, J. J. Sims, M. L. Markel, and M. R. Ujhelyi
Pinacidil's Effects on Defibrillation Outcomes: Role of Increased Potassium Conductance Via the KATP Channel
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, January 1, 1997; 2(3): 171 - 180.
[Abstract] [PDF]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement