Why the study?
Does lidocaine prevent ventricular fibrillation in an acutely ischemic porcine heart model?
Does lidocaine prevent ventricular fibrillation in an acutely ischemic porcine heart model?
Lidocaine demonstrates profibrillatory effects in an acutely ischemic porcine model, supporting clinical observations that its routine use for arrhythmias in acute myocardial infarction may be harmful.
Raises caution for lidocaine in acute ischemia; leaves open translation to human MI.
Because recent clinical studies have failed to show evidence of the benefit of lidocaine in the arrhythmias occurring in the early stage of myocardial infarction and have even shown an increased mortality in patients thus treated, we investigated the value of lidocaine as a protective agent against ventricular fibrillation related to myocardial ischemia in the in situ heart of anesthetized open-chest pigs subjected to transient total occlusion of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) under ventricular pacing at a constant high rate. Vulnerability to the fibrillatory process induced by coronary occlusion was assessed both by time to onset of ventricular fibrillation (TF) and by electrical ventricular fibrillation threshold (EFT) determined after coronary occlusions of increasing duration (30, 60, 120, 180 s). Monophasic action potential (MAP) was recorded concurrently in the nonischemic and ischemic areas. Lidocaine, even in relatively high doses (2-4 mg.kg-1), did not prolong TF, nor did it increase EFT. On the contrary, TF was significantly shortened and EFT was significantly decreased (15-30%) at the maximal concentrations of lidocaine, with return to control values in 40-60 min. Therefore, lidocaine tends to increase the risk of ischemic ventricular fibrillation (VF): It fails to control the extreme enhancement of excitability and worsens conduction disorders, even though it decreases normal conduction only slightly. Use of lidocaine against rhythm disorders in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), is at least debatable and probably contraindicated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aupetit et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: