4.4 Article

Different effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on the rate-dependency of QT interval: A study with amiodarone and flecainide

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 535-540

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3181451473

关键词

antiarrhythmic drugs; heart rate; QT interval; ventricular repolarization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To describe the QT/RR relationship in normal subjects, a previous study validated experimentally and used in healthy subjects a function that separately considered rate-dependent and rate-independent components of ventricular repolarization. The analysis is now extended to the effects on the QT/RR relationship of amiodarone and flecainide, 2 widely used antiarrhythmic drugs affecting repolarization. Methods: The QT/RR relationship was obtained in 45 subjects without heart disease (20 men, 25 women); 20 were taken as controls, and 30 were under antiarrhythmic prophylaxis for lone atrial fibrillation (15 with amiodarone, 15 with flecainide). All subjects underwent a bicycle stress test; RR and QT(V-5)were measured at the end of each load step; QT(c) (Bazett's formula, lead II) was obtained at rest. The QT/RR relation was fitted (R >= 0.90) by the function QT = Q T-max *R/(RR50S + PRS). Here, QT(max) (QT extrapolated at infinite RR) is a rate-independent measure of repolarization, RR50 (RR at which 50% of QT(max) is reached) and S evaluate the rate-dependency of QT. Results: In controls, QT(max) was 436 +/- 67 ms, RR50 was 355 +/- 55 ms, and S was 2.9 +/- 0.2. Amiodarone increased QT(c), QT(max) and RR50 and decreased S significantly. Flecainide slightly prolonged QT(c), increased QT(max) but did not modify RR50 or S. Conculsions: The saturating dependency of human repolarization on cycle length, described by the proposed function, is differently affected by amiodarone and flecainide. These differences might reflect the specific effects of each drug on ionic currents and their properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据