JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1987; 9:389-397
© 1987 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 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 Au, P.
Right arrow Articles by Rahimtoola, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Au, P.
Right arrow Articles by Rahimtoola, S.

Proarrhythmic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs during programmed ventricular stimulation in patients without ventricular tachycardia

PK Au, AK Bhandari, R Bream, D Schreck, R Siddiqi, and SH Rahimtoola

The proarrhythmic effects of class IA antiarrhythmic drugs were prospectively evaluated during programmed ventricular stimulation in 24 consecutive patients with frequent ventricular premature beats whose baseline study, performed while no antiarrhythmic drugs were being taken, showed no inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias. No patient had nonsustained (greater than 5 beats) or sustained ventricular tachycardia by history or baseline 24 hour ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring. Sequential stimulation studies using up to three extra-stimuli were performed after administration of procainamide, quinidine and disopyramide on different days. Proarrhythmic response was defined as induction of one or more of the following: sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia; sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia; ventricular fibrillation; reproducibly inducible nonsustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. During 55 antiarrhythmic drug trials (24 of procainamide, 21 of quinidine, 10 of disopyramide) in the 24 patients, 6 patients had a proarrhythmic response: sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in 3, ventricular fibrillation in 2, nonsustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in 1. Thus, 11% of drug trials resulted in a proarrhythmic response and 25% of patients had a proarrhythmic response to one of the drugs tested. A proarrhythmic response to one drug did not predict a similar response to another drug of the same class. The 6 patients with a proarrhythmic response did not differ significantly from the other 18 patients with regard to underlying heart disease, electrocardiographic or baseline 24 hour ambulatory electrocardiographic characteristics; however, they did have a higher incidence of digoxin usage (p less than 0.02), a shorter baseline right ventricular effective refractory period (p less than 0.01) and a smaller increment in effective refractory period during antiarrhythmic drug testing (p = 0.06).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)





HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1987 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.