Effect of atrial electrical remodeling on the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs: Comparison of amiodarone with I-Kr- and I-to/IKur-blockade in vivo

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (Impact Factor: 3.48). 12/2007; 18(12):1313-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00962.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Amiodarone is the gold standard in the prevention of recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF), but the causes for its superior clinical efficacy are not understood. We hypothesized that atrial electrical remodeling increases the atrial efficacy of amiodarone.
We investigated the effect of an acute intravenous dose of amiodarone on atrial refractory periods (AERP) in sinus rhythm (SR) and after 5, 24, and 72 hours of atrial tachypacing in comparison with the I(Kr) blocker dofetilide and the I(to)/IKur blockers AVE1231 and AVE0118 in five instrumented goats. Electrical remodeling progressively increased the AERP-prolonging effect of 3 mg/kg of AVE1231 and AVE0118 (2-fold increase in AERP at 72 hours vs SR, P < 0.01), but strongly decreased that of 10 mug/kg dofetilide (<0.5-fold, P < 0.05, at 300 and 400 ms basic cycle length). After 5 and 24 hours of tachypacing, the effect of 3 mg/kg amiodarone strongly increased (2-fold, P < 0.01 after 24 hours vs SR). This early gain in AERP prolongation was confirmed in anesthetized pigs with 3.5 hours of atrial tachypacing (2.4-fold increase, P < 0.01). At 72 hours of atrial tachypacing in the goat, however, the early gain was lost and the effect of amiodarone was similar again to that in SR.
Atrial electrical remodeling changed the efficacy of the antiarrhythmic agents in a different way. The favorable efficacy profile of amiodarone during electrical remodeling, particularly the marked increase in AERP prolongation in early electrical remodeling, may explain its superior clinical efficacy over existing antiarrhythmic drugs.

  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to compare the effect of electrical baroreflex stimulation (BRS) at an intensity used in hypertensive patients and renal denervation (RDN) on atrial electrophysiology. BRS and RDN reduce blood pressure and global sympathetic drive in patients with resistant hypertension. Whereas RDN decreases sympathetic renal afferent nerve activity, leading to decreased central sympathetic drive, BRS modulates autonomic balance by activation of the baroreflex, resulting in both reduced sympathetic drive and increased vagal activation. Increased vagal tone potentially shortens atrial refractoriness resulting in a stabilization of reentry circuits perpetuating atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In normotensive anesthetized pigs (n = 12), we compared the acute effect of BRS and RDN on blood pressure, atrial effective refractory period (AERP), and inducibility of AF. Electrical BRS was titrated to result in comparable heart rate and blood pressure reduction compared to irreversible RDN. BRS resulted in a rapid and pronounced shortening of AERP (from 162 ± 8 milliseconds to 117 ± 16 milliseconds, P = 0.001) associated with increased AF-inducibility from 0% to 82%. This shortening in AERP was completely reversible after stopping BRS. After administration of atropine, AF-inducibility during BRS was attenuated. Ventricular repolarization was not modulated by BRS. In RDN, AF was not inducible; however, it did not prevent BRS-induced shortening of AERP. CONCLUSION: RDN and BRS resulting in comparable blood pressure and heart rate reductions differently influence atrial electrophysiology. Vagally mediated shortening of AERP, resulting in increased AF-inducibility, was observed with BRS but not with RDN.
    Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 04/2013; 24(9). DOI:10.1111/jce.12171 · 3.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Renal denervation (RDN) reduces renal efferent and afferent sympathetic activity thereby lowering blood pressure in resistant hypertension. The effect of modulation of the autonomic nervous system by RDN on atrial electrophysiology and ventricular rate control during atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. Here we report a reduction of ventricular heart rate in a patient with permanent AF undergoing RDN. Subsequently, we investigated the effect of RDN on AF-induced shortening of atrial effective refractory period, AF inducibility, and ventricular rate control during AF maintained by rapid atrial pacing in 12 pigs undergoing RDN (n=7) or sham procedure (n=5). During sinus rhythm, RDN reduced heart rate (RR-interval, 708±12 versus 577±19 ms; P=0.0021) and increased atrioventricular node conduction time (PQ-interval, 112±12 versus 88±9 ms; P=0.0001). Atrial tachypacing for 30 minutes increased AF inducibility and decreased AF cycle length. This was not influenced by RDN. RDN reduced ventricular rate during AF episodes by ≈24% (119±9 versus 158±19 bpm; P=0.0001). AF episodes were shorter after RDN compared with sham (12±3 versus 34±4 s; P=0.0091), but atrial effective refractory period was not modified by RDN. RDN reduced heart rate and reduced atrioventricular node conduction time during sinus rhythm and provided rate control during AF. AF-induced atrial electrical remodeling, AF inducibility, and AF cycle length were not modified, but duration of AF episodes was shorter after RDN. Modulation of the autonomic nervous system by RDN might provide rate control and reduce susceptibility to AF. Whether RDN may provide rate control in a larger number of patients with AF deserves further clinical studies.
    Hypertension 11/2012; 61(1). DOI:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.00182 · 7.63 Impact Factor