Key result
In a canine model, high-dose disopyramide displaced the terminal repolarization period backward by prolonging MAP90 and ERP, whereas mexiletine shortened MAP90 and prolonged ERP, eliminating the TRP.
Why the study?
Does disopyramide or mexiletine alter the terminal repolarization process in an in vivo canine model?
Does disopyramide or mexiletine alter the terminal repolarization process in an in vivo canine model?
p-value: p=<0.05
Disopyramide and mexiletine exert distinct electrophysiological effects on the terminal repolarization phase in a canine model, which may mechanistically explain their respective proarrhythmic and antiarrhythmic clinical profiles.
Animal data on class I agents and repolarization warrant clinical caution for QT risk; leaves open human translation.
This study was designed to assess the effects of typical class I drugs on the terminal repolarization process of the in situ heart, which is a useful marker of the potential of drug-induced long QT syndrome. Disopyramide (0.3 and 3.0 mg/kg per 10 min, n = 6) or mexiletine (0.3 and 3.0 mg/kg per 30s, n = 6) was intravenously administered to halothane-anesthetized beagle dogs under the monitoring of multiple cardiovascular parameters. Antiarrhythmic concentrations were obtained with the high dose of each drug. The low dose of disopyramide or mexiletine hardly affected any of the electrophysiological parameters assessed. The high dose of disopyramide prolonged the monophasic action potential duration (MAP90) and effective refractory period (ERP) to a similar extent, thus displacing the terminal repolarization period backward, which might provide a potential proarrhythmic substrate, particularly at a slow heart rate. On the other hand, the high dose of mexiletine shortened the MAP90, but prolonged the ERP, resulting in the disappearance of the terminal repolarization period, which could prevent premature excitation with its associated conduction slowing. These electrophysiological effects of disopyramide and mexiletine on the terminal repolarization phase may at least in part explain their clinically described antiarrhythmic and proarrhythmic properties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoshida et al. (2002) studied Healthy (assessing drug-induced long QT syndrome potential) (n=12). Disopyramide and Mexiletine vs. Pre-drug baseline was evaluated on Terminal repolarization period (TRP), monophasic action potential duration (MAP90), and effective refractory period (ERP) (p=<0.05). In a canine model, high-dose disopyramide displaced the terminal repolarization period backward by prolonging MAP90 and ERP, whereas mexiletine shortened MAP90 and prolonged ERP, eliminating the TRP.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: