Toniolo Mauro, Muser Daniele, Mugnai Giacomo, Rebellato Luca, Daleffe Elisabetta, Bilato Claudio, Imazio Massimo
Division of Cardiology, University Hospital "S.Maria della Misericordia", P.le S.Maria della Misericordia 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
Division of Cardiology, West Vicenza General Hospital, 36071 Arzignano, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2024 Oct 13;13(20):6099. doi: 10.3390/jcm13206099.
Antiarrhythmic therapy for recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients having undergone catheter ablation and in whom amiodarone and/or beta-blockers were ineffective or contraindicated is a controversial issue. The present study sought to compare the efficacy and tolerability of oral procainamide and mexiletine in patients with recurrent ventricular arrhythmias when the standard therapy strategy failed. All patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) treated with oral procainamide or mexiletine for recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in two cardiology divisions between January 2010 and January 2020 were enrolled. Patients were divided into group A (oral procainamide) and group B (mexiletine) and the two groups were compared to each other. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of therapy; the secondary endpoint was the discontinuation of therapy. All events that occurred during procainamide or mexiletine treatment were compared with a matched duration period before the initiation of the therapy. Antiarrhythmic therapy was considered effective when a ≥80% reduction of the sustained ventricular arrhythmias burden recorded by the ICD was achieved. A total of 68 consecutive patients (61 males, 89.7%; mean age 74 ± 10 years) were included in this retrospective analysis. After a median follow-up of 19 months, 38 (56%) patients had a significant reduction in the VA burden. After multivariable adjustment, therapy with procainamide was independently associated with an almost 3-fold higher efficacy on VA suppression compared to mexiletine (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.06-6.14, = 0.03). Only three patients (9%) treated with procainamide presented severe side effects (dyspnea or hypotension) requiring discontinuation of therapy compared with six patients (18%) treated with mexiletine who interrupted therapy because of severe side effects ( = 0.47). Compared to mexiletine, oral procainamide had a higher efficacy for the treatment of recurrent and refractory VAs, and showed a good profile of tolerability.
对于接受过导管消融且胺碘酮和/或β受体阻滞剂无效或禁忌的复发性室性心律失常(VA)患者,抗心律失常治疗是一个有争议的问题。本研究旨在比较口服普鲁卡因胺和美西律在标准治疗策略失败的复发性室性心律失常患者中的疗效和耐受性。纳入2010年1月至2020年1月期间在两个心脏病科接受口服普鲁卡因胺或美西律治疗复发性室性心动过速(VT)或室颤(VF)的所有植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)患者。患者分为A组(口服普鲁卡因胺)和B组(美西律),两组相互比较。主要终点是治疗效果;次要终点是治疗中断。将普鲁卡因胺或美西律治疗期间发生的所有事件与治疗开始前匹配的时间段进行比较。当ICD记录的持续性室性心律失常负担降低≥80%时,抗心律失常治疗被认为有效。本回顾性分析共纳入68例连续患者(61例男性,89.7%;平均年龄74±10岁)。中位随访19个月后,38例(56%)患者的VA负担显著降低。多变量调整后,与美西律相比,普鲁卡因胺治疗在VA抑制方面的疗效几乎高出3倍(HR 2.54,95%CI 1.06 - 6.14,P = 0.03)。接受普鲁卡因胺治疗的患者中只有3例(9%)出现严重副作用(呼吸困难或低血压)需要停药,而接受美西律治疗的患者中有6例(18%)因严重副作用中断治疗(P = 0.47)。与美西律相比,口服普鲁卡因胺治疗复发性和难治性VA的疗效更高,且耐受性良好。