Why the study?
Do moricizine and propafenone alter electrophysiologic parameters compared to procainamide in isolated rabbit hearts?
Do moricizine and propafenone alter electrophysiologic parameters compared to procainamide in isolated rabbit hearts?
Based on electrophysiologic data in isolated rabbit hearts, moricizine acts as a class Ic agent, while propafenone exhibits pronounced tonic sodium channel block similar to class Ia kinetics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Indicates moricizine as class Ic and propafenone with Ia-like block in rabbit hearts; hypothesis-generating and requires human validation.
Because the classification of propafenone and moricizine is not clear, we measured in 20 specifically equipped isolated rabbit hearts QRS duration, QT interval, action potential duration at 90% of repolarization (APD90), effective refractory period (ERP), conduction time (CT), and rise velocity (Rv) of the monophasic action potentials (AP) during exposure to moricizine and propafenone in comparison with procainamide. Propafenone and procainamide prolonged APD90 and JT. All drugs increased ERP. Propafenone demonstrated marked tonic sodium channel block. Onset of use-dependent kinetics (tau on), defined as change in Rv as fraction per beat at 300 ms cycle length (CL), were 0.047 +/- 0.004/beat for procainamide, 0.050 +/- 0.004/beat for propafenone, and 0.022 +/- 0.003/beat for miricizine. Recovery kinetics, defined as recovery of Rv after cessation of pacing, had a time constant of 5.3 +/- 0.7 s for procainamide, 6.3 +/- 0.8 s for propafenone, and 25.0 +/- 1.3 s for moricizine. Based on these data, moricizine must be classified as a Ic agent, whereas propafenone demonstrates pronounced tonic sodium channel block, in addition to its phasic block, which is similar to class Ia kinetics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koller et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: