Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Class III agents alter defibrillation dose-response curves beyond simple shift in dogs; leaves open human ICD implications.
Antiarrhythmic agents with a Class III action are known to increase defibrillation efficacy. We investigated whether a Class III drug simply shifts the dose-response curve for defibrillation or more extensively alters the curve. Forty-five dogs were divided into four groups according to the shock waveform and the presence or absence of treatment with a novel Class III drug, MS-551 (2 mg/kg bolus + 0.02 mg/kg per min). In addition to the conventional transcardiac DFT, dose-response curves were obtained by fitting the results of 40 fibrillation-defibrillation sequences at five shock strengths to a logistic model. MS-551 significantly decreased DFT regardless of the shock waveform (control vs MS-551 = 306 +/- 79 V vs 229 +/- 72 V [monophasic shock, P < 0.05], or 227 +/- 42 V vs 176 +/- 26 V [biphasic shock, P < 0.005]). The dose-response curves in dogs treated with MS-551 had a gentler slope than those without treatment, and the ratio of the voltages corresponding to 50% and 90% defibrillation success (V90/V50) was significantly greater in the MS-551 group (monophasic: 1.21 +/- 0.06 vs. 1.62 +/- 0.42 [P < 0.005], biphasic: 1.20 +/- 0.05 vs 1.37 +/- 0.18 [P < 0.01]). The V90/DFT ratio was also significantly larger in the MS-551 group (monophasic: 1.22 +/- 0.12 vs 1.66 +/- 0.37 [P < 0.001]; biphasic: 1.19 +/- 0.11 vs 1.44 +/- 0.79 [P < 0.005]). Thus, this Class III drug decreased the shock strength corresponding to relatively higher success rate (approximately 90%) less markedly than that for moderate success rate (approximately 50%). These results suggest that a Class III drug does not simply shift the dose response curve in proportion to the change in DFT, but more extensively alters its configuration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murakawa et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: