Masotti C S, Pierangeli A
Department of Surgery, University of Bologna, Italy.
Panminerva Med. 1999 Dec;41(4):295-306.
169 selected patients with previous AMI and inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia (sVT) at electrophysiological study (EPS) were followed-up prospectively for recurrent sVT during a five year period. At EPS, ventricular effective refractory period (VERP)/action potential duration (APd) ratio, ventricular conduction velocity, excitable gap, cycle length and QRS duration were measured. The patients with inducible sVT at basic programmed stimulation or after isoproterenol infusion (200 micrograms i.v.) underwent drug suppression tests (amiodarone, procamide, propanolol + procamide, amiodarone + propaphenone). On this basis, they were later assigned to 3 different groups: the amiodarone-treated group (n = 112), the procamide-treated group (n = 22) and the nonresponder group (control group, n = 35).
After procamide infusion (100 mg/min for 10 min), at fast pacing drive the VERP/APd ratio was significantly increased from baseline levels (p < 0.001), the conduction velocity (Vmax) was significantly depressed (by 25%, p < 0.005), the excitable gap was significantly reduced (p < 0.005, 23% of cycle length) and 71 patients were no longer inducible; during sinus rhythm, Vmax was significantly reduced from baseline values (by 14%, p < 0.05), VERP was only moderately increased and the excitable gap was slightly but significantly prolonged (p < 0.01, 53% of cycle length): 147 patients were still inducible, without significant difference from baseline values. After amiodarone infusion (300 mg/100 ml i.v. over 10 min), Vmax was significantly reduced from baseline levels at fast pacing drive (by 21%, p < 0.001), while the excitable gap did not reduce significantly (34%) from baseline levels and 91 patients were still inducible; during sinus rhythm, conduction velocity was moderately depressed (by 7%, p < 0.05), while VERP was significantly increased from baseline levels (p < 0.002) and the excitable gap was significantly reduced (p < 0.001, 29% of cycle length); only 35 patients were still inducible. In the remaining 134 patients the reset curve showed excitable gaps = 24 +/- 3% of the cycle length. The absolute and relative values of the excitable gap measured in the 35 patients who were still inducible were significantly higher than those measured in patients no longer inducible (p < 0.05). At follow-up, the sVT recurrence rate was: 28% in the amiodarone-treated group, 43% in the procamide-treated group and 36% in the control group: control data were significantly different from the former (p < 0.05) but not from the latter group. Significant correlation was reported between the plasmatic concentration of procamide and amiodarone and the percentage of reduction of Vmax at fast pacing drive (r = 0.79, p < 0.05; r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Resulting variability checked by the analysis of variance showed no significant difference between the two series (p < 0.12638). The development of conduction velocity depression was clearly dose-dependent. Drug suppression test with procamide + propanolol resulted in noninducibility of sVT in 115 patients, with strong significant difference from when the drug was used alone (p < 0.0015). Better results at EPS were obtained by the combination amiodarone + propaphenone, although no additional benefit was reported when compared with amiodarone alone.
In conclusion, antiarrhythmic drugs with class I action may be highly effective in terminating sVI (lidocaine, procamide) but may be ineffective in preventing it or even arrhythmogenic. According to our data, drugs with class III antiarrhythmic action showed significantly different behavior: they were more effective in prolonging refractoriness and reducing the excitable gap at longer cycle lengths and, thus, capable of preventing, rather than terminating. Although statistical difference was reported between the amiodarone-treated group and the control group, the incidence of recurrent sVT remained too high to consider drug therapy as
169例入选患者既往有急性心肌梗死病史,在电生理研究(EPS)中可诱发持续性室性心动过速(sVT),对其进行了为期五年的前瞻性随访,观察sVT复发情况。在EPS时,测量心室有效不应期(VERP)/动作电位时程(APd)比值、心室传导速度、可兴奋间隙、心动周期长度和QRS波时限。在基础程控刺激或静脉注射异丙肾上腺素(200微克)后可诱发sVT的患者进行药物抑制试验(胺碘酮、普鲁卡因胺、普萘洛尔+普鲁卡因胺、胺碘酮+普罗帕酮)。在此基础上,将患者分为3组:胺碘酮治疗组(n = 112)、普鲁卡因胺治疗组(n = 22)和无反应组(对照组,n = 35)。
静脉注射普鲁卡因胺(100毫克/分钟,共10分钟)后,快速起搏驱动时VERP/APd比值较基线水平显著升高(p < 0.001),传导速度(Vmax)显著降低(降低25%,p < 0.005),可兴奋间隙显著减小(p < 0.005,心动周期长度的23%),71例患者不再能诱发sVT;在窦性心律时Vmax较基线值显著降低(降低14%,p < 0.05),VERP仅适度增加,可兴奋间隙略有但显著延长(p < 0.01,心动周期长度的53%):147例患者仍可诱发,与基线值无显著差异。静脉注射胺碘酮(300毫克/100毫升,10分钟内)后,快速起搏驱动时Vmax较基线水平显著降低(降低21%,p < 0.001),而可兴奋间隙较基线水平无显著减小(34%),91例患者仍可诱发;在窦性心律时,传导速度适度降低(降低7%,p < 0.05),而VERP较基线水平显著增加(p < 0.002),可兴奋间隙显著减小(p < 0.001,心动周期长度的29%);仅35例患者仍可诱发。在其余134例患者中,复位曲线显示可兴奋间隙=心动周期长度的24±3%。在仍可诱发sVT的35例患者中测量的可兴奋间隙的绝对值和相对值显著高于不再能诱发的患者(p < 0.05)。随访时,胺碘酮治疗组sVT复发率为28%,普鲁卡因胺治疗组为43%,对照组为36%:对照组数据与胺碘酮治疗组有显著差异(p < 0.05),但与普鲁卡因胺治疗组无差异。据报道,普鲁卡因胺和胺碘酮的血浆浓度与快速起搏驱动时Vmax降低的百分比之间存在显著相关性(r = 0.79,p < 0.05;r = 0.83,p < 0.01)。通过方差分析检查的结果变异性显示两个系列之间无显著差异(p < 0.12638)。传导速度降低的发展明显呈剂量依赖性。普鲁卡因胺+普萘洛尔药物抑制试验使115例患者的sVT不能诱发,与单独使用药物时有显著差异(p < 0.0015)。胺碘酮+普罗帕酮联合使用在EPS时效果更好,尽管与单独使用胺碘酮相比未报告有额外益处。
总之,I类抗心律失常药物在终止sVT方面可能非常有效(利多卡因、普鲁卡因胺),但在预防sVT方面可能无效,甚至可能致心律失常。根据我们的数据,III类抗心律失常药物表现出显著不同的行为:它们在较长心动周期长度时更有效地延长不应期并减小可兴奋间隙,因此能够预防而不是终止sVT。虽然胺碘酮治疗组与对照组之间有统计学差异,但sVT复发率仍然过高,以至于不能将药物治疗视为……