[New aspects of the clinical use of anti-arrhythmia agents with special reference to acute therapy of ventricular tachycardia (lidocaine vs. ajmaline)]

Abstract

Antiarrhythmic treatment is based on the hypothesis that ventricular premature beats (VPBs), in the presence of underlying cardiac disease and impaired ventricular function, may predispose to sudden cardiac death. The effectiveness of treatment, however, has not been proven. For acute treatment of paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia, on comparison of the effectiveness of lidocaine and ajmaline, some new aspects have been rendered. VENTRICULAR PREMATURE BEATS (VPB): Isolated VPBs can be found in 40 to 75% of healthy subjects; if their number is substantial, investigation is warranted. For VPBs with subjective symptoms, beta-receptor blockers or specific antiarrhythmic agents, if necessary in combination, may be given. In several studies it has been shown that the prognosis of patients with frequent and complex VPBs, that is couplets and salvos, without heart disease is not compromised. In one long-term study over an average of 6.5 years, sudden death was observed in only one of 70 subjects who had 566 VPBs/24 hours, 60% additionally couplets and 26% salvos in the Holter ECG. Accordingly, treatment for the sake of prognosis is not warranted. For patients with mitral valve prolapse or only mildly impaired ventricular function and asymptomatic arrhythmias, treatment is not necessary since it has not been shown to be beneficial. Coronary artery disease is the most frequent cause of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death. In numerous studies in patients after myocardial infarction, a relationship has been recognized between frequent and complex VPBs and overall mortality as well as sudden death. Particularly at risk are patients with very frequent and complex VPBs with additional impairment of ejection fraction to less than 30 to 40% but this group only accounts for 10% of patients after infarction. Only in one interventional study, carried out with aprindine, there was a significant reduction in overall mortality from 12.5 to 7.8% with an adverse reaction rate, however, of 21%. In high-risk patients with a low ejection fraction and numerous, complex VPBs as well, in a further study with aprindine, after one year, there was no decrease in overall mortality as compared with the placebo group. The cause for the insufficient effectiveness of the antiarrhythmic agents in various interventional studies has been attributed to a limited number of patients, rigid dosing regimens, inadequate suppression of VPBs and a high incidence of adverse reactions. In the multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled CAST study with newer substances, a total of 2309 patients with essentially asymptomatic VPBs at a rate of more than 6/hour and an ejection fraction less than 55% or 40% admitted more than 90 days after infarction, respectively, were followed from six days to two years after myocardial infarction to determine if the significant suppression of VPBs in patients with coronary artery disease with antiarrhythmic agents leads to a reduction in arrhythmia-associated deaths. Flecainide, encainide and moricizine led to a significant suppression of VPBs in 75% of the patients. After an average of ten months, the rate of arrhythmia-induced deaths of 4.5% in those treated with encainide or flecainide was significantly higher than the 1.2% observed in the placebo group. These results appear attributable to a proarrhythmic effect of the class IC drugs during long-term treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)