Why the study?
Does dofetilide prolong action potential duration in rabbit atrial myocardium?
Does dofetilide prolong action potential duration in rabbit atrial myocardium?
Dofetilide prolongs action potential duration in rabbit atrial tissue, but exhibits reverse rate dependence, losing efficacy at higher stimulation rates (>2 Hz).
Dofetilide prolongs rabbit atrial APD with reverse rate dependence; leaves open translation to human AF efficacy.
Background Dofetilide is a new class III antiarrhythmic agent with demonstrated efficacy in ventricular and atrial tachyarrhythmias. We investigated its class HI actions and their modulation by stimulation rate in rabbit atrial myocardium. Methods and Results Standard microelectrode techniques were used to record action potentials from rabbit atrial tissue at varying stimulation rates. Dofetilide produced a dose-dependent prolongation of action potential duration at concentrations from 1 nM to 1 μM at an interstimulus interval of 1000 ms. Action potential duration at 90% repolarization (action potential duration) was prolonged from 116 ± 11.7 ms in control solutions to 148 ± 13.9 ms at 1nM dofetilide and 186 ± 49.3 ms at 1 μM dofetilide ( P < .05 for 1 nM vs control; P < .01 for 1 μM vs control). Reduction of interstimulus interval to 500 ms had no significant effect on action potential duration prolongation by dofetilide. At faster rates than this, and particularly at an interstimulus interval less than 330 ms, a marked “reverse rate dependence” of the class III effect was observed. Specifically, the high therapeutic concentration of 10 nM showed no effect on action potential duration at interstimulus interval of 250 ms or 200 ms, and even at a concentration of 30 nM, the small class III effect was no longer statistically significant at these rates. Conclusion Dofetilide prolongs action potential duration in rabbit atrial myocardium, but this effect is significantly attenuated at stimulation rates above 2 Hz.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pallandi et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: