EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,214,146
Abstracts:
29,074,682
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral sotalol for sustained ventricular tachycardia secondary to coronary artery disease






American Journal of Cardiology 61(13): 1006-1011

Electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral sotalol for sustained ventricular tachycardia secondary to coronary artery disease

The electrophysiologic effects of intravenous sotalol (1.5 mg/kg load followed by 0.008 mg/kg maintenance, mean dose 150 .+-. 23 mg) and oral sotalol (mean dose 583 .+-. 204 mg daily) were prospectively evaluated in 16 patients undergoing electrophysiologic evaluation for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) secondary to coronary artery disease. Electrocardiographic intervals, indexes of sinus and atrioventricular node function and indexes of atrial and ventricular function were assessed. Inducibility or noninducibility of sustained VT and characteristics of the induced arrhythmia were also evaluated. Intravenous and oral sotalol exerted similar .beta.-blocking effects, which included significant prolongation of sinus cycle length (baseline 820 .+-. 165 ms, intravenous sotalol 1,077 .+-. 206 ms, oral sotalol 1,141 .+-. 306 ms), AH interval (baseline 126 .+-. 43, intravenous sotalol 169 .+-. 42, oral sotalol 197 .+-. 55 ms) and Wenckebach cycle length (baseline 375 .+-. 70, intravenous sotalol 460 .+-. 84, oral sotalol 449 .+-. 68 ms). Both intravenous and oral sotalol also prolonged repolarization and refractoriness including significant increases in QT interval (baseline 338 .+-. 47, intravenous sotalol 417 .+-. 35, oral sotalol 450 .+-. 70 ms), atrial effective refractory period (baseline 240 .+-. 38, intravenous sotalol 330 .+-. 71, oral sotalol 299 .+-. 26 ms) and right ventricular effective refractory period (baseline 241 .+-. 16, intravenous sotalol 289 .+-. 35, oral sotalol 291 .+-. 22 ms). Both intravenous and oral sotalol significantly slowed the cycle length of induced VT (baseline 265 .+-. 53, intravenous sotalol 351 .+-. 31, oral sotalol 331 .+-. 64 ms) and increased the mean arterial pressure during VT (baseline 45 .+-. 14 mm Hg, intravenous sotalol 78 .+-. 13 mm Hg, oral sotalol 65 .+-. 25 mm Hg). Intravenous and oral sotalol prevented induction of sustained VT in a similar percentage of patients (intravenous sotalol 2 of 9, 22%, oral sotalol 2 of 11, 18%). The observed electropharmacologic effects of intravenous and oral sotalol did not correlate with plasma concentration. Intravenous and oral sotalol have similar qualitative electrophysiologic effects but the specific quantitative effects observed may vary among individual patients.

Accession: 005349303

PMID: 3284316

DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(88)90116-6

Download PDF Full Text: Electrophysiologic effects of intravenous and oral sotalol for sustained ventricular tachycardia secondary to coronary artery disease



Related references

Efficacy and electrophysiologic effects of oral sotalol in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia caused by coronary artery disease. American Heart Journal 123(1): 82-89, 1992

Electrophysiologic evaluation of pirmenol for sustained ventricular tachycardia secondary to coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology 58(1): 86-89, 1986

Usefulness of the response to intravenous procainamide during electrophysiologic study in predicting the response to oral quinidine in patients with inducible sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia associated with coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology 72(12): 908-910, 1993

Electrophysiologic evaluation of the antiarrhythmic effects of N-acetylprocainamide for ventricular tachycardia secondary to coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology 56(13): 877-881, 1985

Randomized crossover comparison of the electrophysiologic and antiarrhythmic efficacy of oral cibenzoline and sotalol for sustained ventricular tachycardia. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 21(1): 95-100, 1993

Implantable defibrillators are superior to d,l-Sotalol for treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 27(2 SUPPL A): 402A, 1996

Comparison of d,l-sotalol and implantable defibrillators for treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 94(2): 151-157, 1996

Electrophysiologic effects of Sotalol and amiodarone in patients with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. American Journal Of Cardiology. 74(11): 1119-1123, 1994

A randomised cross-over study on the haemodynamic effects of oral dofetilide compared with oral sotalol in patients with ischaemic heart disease and sustained ventricular tachycardia. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 58(3): 165-169, 2002

Correlation between the signal-averaged electrocardiogram and electrophysiologic study findings in patients with coronary artery disease and sustained ventricular tachycardia. American Heart Journal 115(4): 816-824, 1988