Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1984; 4:1247-1254
© 1984 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marchlinski, F.
Right arrow Articles by Josephson, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Marchlinski, F.
Right arrow Articles by Josephson, M.

Comparative electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral procainamide in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias

FE Marchlinski, AE Buxton, JA Vassallo, HL Waxman, DM Cassidy, JU Doherty, and ME Josephson

Thirty-three patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias underwent electrophysiologic testing after intravenous and again after oral procainamide administration. Two groups were identified: group 1 included 15 patients with concordant serum procainamide concentrations with less than a 3 micrograms/ml difference after intravenous (mean 8.6 +/- 2.7) and oral (mean 8.8 +/- 2.7) procainamide administration, with mean N-acetylprocainamide concentrations of 1.0 +/- 0.6 and 6.2 +/- 2.8 micrograms/ml, respectively. Group 2 included 18 patients with discordant serum procainamide concentrations after intravenous (mean 9.5 +/- 5.9 micrograms/ml) and oral (mean 14.1 +/- 5.2 micrograms/ml) procainamide, with mean N-acetylprocainamide concentrations of 0.9 +/- 0.5 and 10.7 +/- 5.7 micrograms/ml, respectively. In group 1, response to programmed stimulation was the same after intravenous and oral procainamide administration, with no inducible ventricular arrhythmia in 5 of 15 patients. In group 2, 3 of 18 patients had no inducible arrhythmia after intravenous compared with 7 of 18 patients after oral procainamide administration. There was a different response to programmed stimulation after oral compared with intravenous procainamide in 6 of 18 patients in group 2 but in none of 15 patients in group 1 (p = 0.02). The effective procainamide concentration was greater than the ineffective concentration in five of the six patients with a discordant response, and the effective route of administration was oral in five of the six patients. The change in ventricular refractoriness in group 1 was similar after intravenous (28 +/- 23 ms) and oral (29 +/- 19 ms) procainamide, whereas in group 2, refractoriness was increased more after oral (33 +/- 21 ms) than intravenous (20 +/- 17 ms) procainamide administration and paralleled the difference in procainamide concentration.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement