OBJECTIVES: The arrhythmogenic and electrophysiologic properties of sotalol, a class III antiarrhythmic drug, administered alone and in combination with mexiletine, a class I antiarrhythmic drug, were compared in conscious dogs predisposed to torsade de pointes arrhythmias. BACKGROUND: The utility of sotalol is limited by proarrhythmia related to excessive delays in repolarization. The addition of mexiletine may limit the risk of torsade de pointes because it reduced in vitro the sotalol-induced increase in action potential duration. METHODS: Two studies were performed in eight hypokalemic dogs (plasma potassium level < or = 3.2 mmol/liter) with chronic atrioventricular block (mean ventricular cycle length, RR 1,100 ms) at 3-day intervals using a crossover protocol. Intravenous sotalol (4.5 + 1.5 mg/kg body weight per h) alone was given for 2 h, or, on another day, an intravenous mexiletine infusion (4.5 + 1.5 mg/kg per h) was begun 30 min before sotalol infusion. Spontaneous ventricular cycle length and QT interval and ventricular effective refractory period at the 1,000-ms pacing cycle length were measured at baseline and 30 min after the onset of each drug infusion. The electrocardiogram (ECG) was continuously monitored for torsade de pointes. RESULTS: Sotalol plus mexiletine and sotalol alone had a significant (p < or = 0.05) and similar effect on ventricular cycle length (+ 800 +/- 93 vs. + 690 +/- 104 ms [mean +/- SEM]) and ventricular effective refractory period (+ 20 +/- 4 vs. + 25 +/- 4 ms), but sotalol plus mexiletine had a lesser effect on QT interval (+ 20 +/- 6 vs. + 50 +/- 8 ms, p < or = 0.05). Torsade de pointes is less frequent (one of eight dogs vs. six of eight dogs, p = 0.02) with sotalol plus mexiletine than with sotalol alone. CONCLUSIONS: The coadministration of a class Ib agent can reduce the proarrhythmic potential of a class III drug in experimental animals predisposed to torsade de pointes arrhythmias and further suggests the clinical utility of such a strategy.
OBJECTIVES: The arrhythmogenic and electrophysiologic properties of sotalol, a class III antiarrhythmic drug, administered alone and in combination with mexiletine, a class I antiarrhythmic drug, were compared in conscious dogs predisposed to torsade de pointes arrhythmias. BACKGROUND: The utility of sotalol is limited by proarrhythmia related to excessive delays in repolarization. The addition of mexiletine may limit the risk of torsade de pointes because it reduced in vitro the sotalol-induced increase in action potential duration. METHODS: Two studies were performed in eight hypokalemicdogs (plasma potassium level < or = 3.2 mmol/liter) with chronic atrioventricular block (mean ventricular cycle length, RR 1,100 ms) at 3-day intervals using a crossover protocol. Intravenous sotalol (4.5 + 1.5 mg/kg body weight per h) alone was given for 2 h, or, on another day, an intravenous mexiletine infusion (4.5 + 1.5 mg/kg per h) was begun 30 min before sotalol infusion. Spontaneous ventricular cycle length and QT interval and ventricular effective refractory period at the 1,000-ms pacing cycle length were measured at baseline and 30 min after the onset of each drug infusion. The electrocardiogram (ECG) was continuously monitored for torsade de pointes. RESULTS:Sotalol plus mexiletine and sotalol alone had a significant (p < or = 0.05) and similar effect on ventricular cycle length (+ 800 +/- 93 vs. + 690 +/- 104 ms [mean +/- SEM]) and ventricular effective refractory period (+ 20 +/- 4 vs. + 25 +/- 4 ms), but sotalol plus mexiletine had a lesser effect on QT interval (+ 20 +/- 6 vs. + 50 +/- 8 ms, p < or = 0.05). Torsade de pointes is less frequent (one of eight dogs vs. six of eight dogs, p = 0.02) with sotalol plus mexiletine than with sotalol alone. CONCLUSIONS: The coadministration of a class Ib agent can reduce the proarrhythmic potential of a class III drug in experimental animals predisposed to torsade de pointes arrhythmias and further suggests the clinical utility of such a strategy.
Authors: L Johannesen; J Vicente; J W Mason; C Erato; C Sanabria; K Waite-Labott; M Hong; J Lin; P Guo; A Mutlib; J Wang; W J Crumb; K Blinova; D Chan; J Stohlman; J Florian; M Ugander; N Stockbridge; D G Strauss Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Kelly C Chang; Sara Dutta; Gary R Mirams; Kylie A Beattie; Jiansong Sheng; Phu N Tran; Min Wu; Wendy W Wu; Thomas Colatsky; David G Strauss; Zhihua Li Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Adam P Hill; Matthew D Perry; Najah Abi-Gerges; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Bernard Fermini; Jules C Hancox; Bjorn C Knollmann; Gary R Mirams; Jon Skinner; Wojciech Zareba; Jamie I Vandenberg Journal: J Physiol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Jose Vicente; Robbert Zusterzeel; Lars Johannesen; Jay Mason; Philip Sager; Vikram Patel; Murali K Matta; Zhihua Li; Jiang Liu; Christine Garnett; Norman Stockbridge; Issam Zineh; David G Strauss Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jose Vicente; Robbert Zusterzeel; Lars Johannesen; Roberto Ochoa-Jimenez; Jay W Mason; Carlos Sanabria; Sarah Kemp; Philip T Sager; Vikram Patel; Murali K Matta; Jiang Liu; Jeffry Florian; Christine Garnett; Norman Stockbridge; David G Strauss Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.875