4.8 Article

Contrasting efficacy of dofetilide in differing experimental models of atrial fibrillation

Journal

CIRCULATION
Volume 102, Issue 1, Pages 104-112

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.102.1.104

Keywords

arrhythmia; dofetilide; ventricles; remodeling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-Rapid atrial pacing (RAP) and congestive heart failure (CHF) produce different experimental substrates for atrial fibrillation (AF). We tested the hypothesis that AF maintained by different substrates responds differently to antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. Methods and Results-The class ill antiarrhythmic agent dofetilide was given intravenously at doses of 10 (D10) and 80 (D80) mu g/kg to dogs with AF induced either (1) after 7 days of RAP at 400 bpm or (2) in the presence of CHF induced by rapid ventricular pacing. Dofetilide terminated AF in all CHF dogs, but D10 failed to terminate AF in any RAP dog, and D80 terminated AF in only 1 of 5 RAP dogs (20%) (P<0.01 for efficacy in CHF versus RAP dogs). Dofetilide was highly effective in preventing AF induction by atrial burst pacing in dogs with CHF but was totally ineffective in dogs with RAP. Dofetilide increased atrial effective refractory period and AF cycle length to a greater extent in CHF dogs. Epicardial mapping with 248 bipolar electrodes showed that CHF-related AF was often due to macroreentry, with dofetilide terminating AF by causing block in reentry circuits. RAP-related AF was due to multiple-wave front reentry, with dofetilide slowing reentry and decreasing the number of simultaneous waves, but not sufficiently to stop AF, Conclusions-The mechanism underlying AF importantly influences dofetilide efficacy. The dependence of drug efficacy in AF on the underlying mechanism has potentially significant implications for antiarrhythmic drug use and development and may explain the well-known therapeutic resistance of longer-duration AF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available