Why the study?
Does ivabradine improve rhythm and cardiac function in infants with refractory congenital junctional ectopic tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy?
Does ivabradine improve rhythm and cardiac function in infants with refractory congenital junctional ectopic tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy?
Ivabradine may be an effective and safe treatment for refractory congenital junctional ectopic tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy in infants.
Supports ivabradine in refractory congenital JET cardiomyopathy; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before practice change.
Junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET) is a rare form of arrhythmia that is most commonly seen during infancy. JET is continuous and incessant, characterized by persistently high heart rates that may result in impaired cardiac function and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Despite the availability of multiple antiarrhythmic treatments, including flecainide and amiodarone, management of JET is generally very difficult. Catheter ablation has a high risk of atrioventricular block and it may require the placement of a pacemaker. Ivabradine, also known as a cardiac pacemaker cell inhibitor, is a new-generation antiarrhythmic used to treat sinus tachycardia and angina pectoris in adult patients. In this article, we present three cases of subjects with infantile congenital JET who were admitted to our clinic with a tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. The age of the subjects ranged from 52 days to 10 months. Although the cases of tachycardia could not be controlled by multiple antiarrhythmics, including a combination of amiodarone and flecainide combined with either propranolol or digoxin, they were rapidly converted into sinus rhythm with an ivabradine treatment of 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/day. No cardiac or other side effects were observed during ivabradine treatment, and left ventricular functions and rhythms improved within 24 hours. These three cases therefore provide hope that ivabradine may be a suitable standard initial treatment for congenital JET. However, additional research is needed to confirm the validity of these results in other circumstances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ergül et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: