Amiodarone is an iodinated benzofuran derivative, a highly lipophilic drug with unpredictable pharmacokinetics. Although originally classified as a class III agent due to its ability to prolong ...refractoriness in cardiac regions and prevent/terminate re-entry, amiodarone shows antiarrhythmic properties of all four antiarrhythmic drug classes. Amiodarone is a potent coronary and peripheral vasodilator, can be safely used in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction or those with congestive heart failure or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and is rarely associated with QT interval prolongation and ventricular pro-arrhythmia. It is the most powerful pharmacological agent for long-term sinus rhythm maintenance in patients with atrial fibrillation. Amiodarone, particularly if co-administered with beta-blockers, reduces the rate of arrhythmic death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with heart failure, but its benefit on cardiovascular and overall survival in these patients is uncertain. In addition, amiodarone is an important adjuvant drug for the reduction of shocks in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Due to its beneficial pharmacological profile amiodarone became the most prescribed antiarrhythmic drug over the past 40 years. Nevertheless, the slow onset of its antiarrhythmic action requires a loading dose and the high risk of non-cardiac toxicity and common drug-drug interactions limit its long-term use. Therefore amiodarone is generally considered a secondary therapeutic option, particularly if alternative antiarrhythmic strategies are not available or are not indicated. Long-term treatment with amiodarone should be based on the use of minimal doses for satisfactory arrhythmia outcome and serial screening for thyroid, liver and pulmonary toxicity.
Display omitted
Amiodarone is an iodinated benzofuran derivative, a highly lipophilic drug with unpredictable pharmacokinetics. Although originally classified as a class III agent due to its ability to prolong refractoriness in cardiac regions and prevent/terminate re-entry, amiodarone shows antiarrhythmic properties of all four antiarrhythmic drug classes. Amiodarone is a potent coronary and peripheral vasodilator and can be safely used in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction or those with congestive heart failure or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Its use is regularly accompanied with QT and QTc-interval prolongation but rarely with ventricular proarrhythmia. It is the most powerful pharmacological agent for long-term sinus rhythm maintenance in patients with atrial fibrillation. Amiodarone, particularly if co-administered with beta-blockers, reduces the rate of arrhythmic death due to ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with heart failure, but its benefit on cardiovascular and overall survival in these patients is uncertain. In addition, amiodarone is an important adjuvant drug for the reduction of shocks in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Over the past 40 years, amiodarone became the most prescribed antiarrhythmic. Nevertheless, the slow onset of its antiarrhythmic action requires a loading dose while the high risk of non-cardiac toxicity and common drug-drug interactions limit its long-term use. Furthermore patients treated with amiodarone require a close supervision by the treating physician. Therefore amiodarone is generally considered a secondary therapeutic option. Long-term treatment with amiodarone should be based on the use of minimal doses for satisfactory arrhythmia outcome and serial screening for thyroid, liver and pulmonary toxicity.
A male newborn weighing 2334 g was delivered at 37 weeks of gestation by caesarean section because of prenatal ultrasound findings of fetal hydrops with atrioventricualr block, ventriucular ...tachycardia (VT), and impaired ventricular function. In spite of the intravenous administration of lidocaine, VT continued. He developed poor perfusion and systemic hypotension. After the intravenous administration of amiodarone, VT was terminated. The electrocardiogram revealed an extremely prolonged corrected QT interval (860 ms) with 2:1 atrioventricular block. Unfortunately, he died 18 h after birth in spite of the administration of lidocaine, beta-blocker and magnesium. Mutational analysis identified a novel heterozygous de novo mutation (F1486del) in SCN5A. This mutation is associated with the IFM motif in the linker between III and IV domains of Na sub(v)1.5, which serves as an inactivation particle binding within the pore of sodium channels. This report demonstrates an interesting relationship between the clinical phenotype and the location of the mutation in long QT syndrome.
Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective ...approach to management of this problem is uncertain.
We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock.
Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group.
In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).
Amiodarone and thyroid Eskes, Silvia A., MD; Wiersinga, Wilmar M., MD, PhD, FRCP (London)
Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism,
12/2009, Letnik:
23, Številka:
6
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Assessment of TSH and TPO-Ab before starting amiodarone (AM) treatment is recommended. The usefulness of periodic TSH measurement every 6 months during AM treatment is limited by the often sudden ...explosive onset of AIT, and the spontaneous return of a suppressed TSH to normal values in half of the cases. AM-induced hypothyroidism develops rather early after starting treatment, preferentially in iodine-sufficient areas and in females with TPO-Ab; it is due to failure to escape from the Wolff–Chaikoff effect, resulting in preserved radioiodine uptake. AM-induced thyrotoxicosis (AIT) occurs at any time during treatment, preferentially in iodine-deficient regions and in males. AIT can be classified in type 1 (iodide-induced thyrotoxicosis, best treated by potassium perchlorate in combination with thionamides and discontinuation of AM) and type 2 (destructive thyrotoxicosis, best treated by prednisone; discontinuation of AM may not be necessary). AIT is associated with a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (especially of ventricular arrhythmias). Uncertainty continues to exist with respect to the feasibility of continuation of AM despite AIT, the appropriate methods to distinguish between AIT type 1 and 2 as well as the advantages of AIT classification into subtypes in view of possible mixed cases, and the best policy when AM needs to be restarted.
Amiodarone and the thyroid: A 2012 update Bogazzi, F.; Tomisti, L.; Bartalena, L. ...
Journal of endocrinological investigation,
03/2012, Letnik:
35, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Amiodarone-induced thyroid dysfunction occurs in 15–20% of amiodarone-treated patients. Amiodarone-induced hypothyroidism (AIH) does not pose relevant problems, is easily controlled by L-thyroxine ...replacement, and does not require amiodarone withdrawal. Most frequently AIH develops in patients with chronic autoimmune thyroiditis. Amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis (AIT) is most frequently due to destructive thyroiditis (type 2 AIT) causing discharge of thyroid hormones from the damaged, but otherwise substantially normal gland. Less frequently AIT is a form of hyperthyroidism (type 1 AIT) caused by the iodine load in a diseased gland (nodular goiter, Graves’ disease). A clearcut differentiation between the two main forms is not always possible, despite recent diagnostic advances. As a matter of fact, mixed or indefinite forms do exist, contributed to by both thyroid damage and increased thyroid hormone synthesis. Treatment of type 1 (and mixed forms) AIT is based on the use of thionamides, a short course of potassium perchlorate and, if treatment is not rapidly effective, oral glucocorticoids. Glucocorticoids are the first-line treatment for type 2 AIT. Amiodarone should be discontinued, if feasible from a cardiac standpoint. Continuation of amiodarone has recently been associated with a delayed restoration of euthyroidism and a higher chance of recurrence after glucocorticoid withdrawal. Whether amiodarone treatment can be safely reinstituted after restoration of euthyroidism is still unknown. In rare cases of AIT resistance to standard treatments, or when a rapid restoration of euthyroidism is advisable, total thyroidectomy represents a valid alternative. Radioiodine treatment is usually not feasible due to the low thyroidal iodine uptake.
Dronedarone versus Amiodarone in Patients with AF. Introduction: We compared the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and dronedarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF).
Methods: Five ...hundred and four amiodarone‐naïve patients were randomized to receive dronedarone 400 mg bid (n = 249) or amiodarone 600 mg qd for 28 days then 200 mg qd (n = 255) for at least 6 months. Primary composite endpoint was recurrence of AF (including unsuccessful electrical cardioversion, no spontaneous conversion and no electrical cardioversion) or premature study discontinuation. Main safety endpoint (MSE) was occurrence of thyroid‐, hepatic‐, pulmonary‐, neurologic‐, skin‐, eye‐, or gastrointestinal‐specific events, or premature study drug discontinuation following an adverse event.
Results: Median treatment duration was 7 months. The primary composite endpoint was 75.1 and 58.8% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (hazard ratio HR 1.59; 95% confidence interval CI 1.28–1.98; P < 0.0001), mainly driven by AF recurrence with dronedarone compared with amiodarone (63.5 vs 42.0%). AF recurrence after successful cardioversion was 36.5 and 24.3% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. Premature drug discontinuation tended to be less frequent with dronedarone (10.4 vs 13.3%). MSE was 39.3 and 44.5% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.60–1.07; P = 0.129), and mainly driven by fewer thyroid, neurologic, skin, and ocular events in the dronedarone group.
Conclusion: In this short‐term study, dronedarone was less effective than amiodarone in decreasing AF recurrence, but had a better safety profile, specifically with regard to thyroid and neurologic events and a lack of interaction with oral anticoagulants. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 597‐605, June 2010)
Evaluation of drug-drug interaction (DDI) involving circulating inhibitory metabolites of perpetrator drugs has recently drawn more attention from regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. ...Here, using amiodarone (AMIO) as an example, we demonstrate the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to assess how a potential inhibitory metabolite can contribute to clinically significant DDIs. Amiodarone was reported to increase the exposure of simvastatin, dextromethorphan, and warfarin by 1.2- to 2-fold, which was not expected based on its weak inhibition observed in vitro. The major circulating metabolite, mono-desethyl-amiodarone (MDEA), was later identified to have a more potent inhibitory effect. Using a combined "bottom-up" and "top-down" approach, a PBPK model was built to successfully simulate the pharmacokinetic profile of AMIO and MDEA, particularly their accumulation in plasma and liver after a long-term treatment. The clinical AMIO DDIs were predicted using the verified PBPK model with incorporation of cytochrome P450 inhibition from both AMIO and MDEA. The closest prediction was obtained for CYP3A (simvastatin) DDI when the competitive inhibition from both AMIO and MDEA was considered, for CYP2D6 (dextromethorphan) DDI when the competitive inhibition from AMIO and the competitive plus time-dependent inhibition from MDEA were incorporated, and for CYP2C9 (warfarin) DDI when the competitive plus time-dependent inhibition from AMIO and the competitive inhibition from MDEA were considered. The PBPK model with the ability to simulate DDI by considering dynamic change and accumulation of inhibitor (parent and metabolite) concentration in plasma and liver provides advantages in understanding the possible mechanism of clinical DDIs involving inhibitory metabolites.
Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with increased rates of death, complications, and hospitalizations. In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation who are in stable ...condition, the best initial treatment strategy--heart-rate control or rhythm control--remains controversial.
Patients with new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to undergo either rate control or rhythm control. The primary end point was the total number of days of hospitalization within 60 days after randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 695 of the 2109 patients (33.0%) who were enrolled preoperatively; of these patients, 523 underwent randomization. The total numbers of hospital days in the rate-control group and the rhythm-control group were similar (median, 5.1 days and 5.0 days, respectively; P=0.76). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death (P=0.64) or overall serious adverse events (24.8 per 100 patient-months in the rate-control group and 26.4 per 100 patient-months in the rhythm-control group, P=0.61), including thromboembolic and bleeding events. About 25% of the patients in each group deviated from the assigned therapy, mainly because of drug ineffectiveness (in the rate-control group) or amiodarone side effects or adverse drug reactions (in the rhythm-control group). At 60 days, 93.8% of the patients in the rate-control group and 97.9% of those in the rhythm-control group had had a stable heart rhythm without atrial fibrillation for the previous 30 days (P=0.02), and 84.2% and 86.9%, respectively, had been free from atrial fibrillation from discharge to 60 days (P=0.41).
Strategies for rate control and rhythm control to treat postoperative atrial fibrillation were associated with equal numbers of days of hospitalization, similar complication rates, and similarly low rates of persistent atrial fibrillation 60 days after onset. Neither treatment strategy showed a net clinical advantage over the other. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02132767.).
Amiodarone is effective in maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation but is associated with potentially serious toxic effects. Dronedarone is a new antiarrhythmic agent pharmacologically ...related to amiodarone but developed to reduce the risk of side effects.
In two identical multicenter, double-blind, randomized trials, one conducted in Europe (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00259428 ClinicalTrials.gov ) and one conducted in the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Argentina (termed the non-European trial, NCT00259376 ClinicalTrials.gov ), we evaluated the efficacy of dronedarone, with 828 patients receiving 400 mg of the drug twice daily and 409 patients receiving placebo. Rhythm was monitored transtelephonically on days 2, 3, and 5; at 3, 5, 7, and 10 months; during recurrence of arrhythmia; and at nine scheduled visits during a 12-month period. The primary end point was the time to the first recurrence of atrial fibrillation or flutter.
In the European trial, the median times to the recurrence of arrhythmia were 41 days in the placebo group and 96 days in the dronedarone group (P=0.01). The corresponding durations in the non-European trial were 59 and 158 days (P=0.002). At the recurrence of arrhythmia in the European trial, the mean (+/-SD) ventricular rate was 117.5+/-29.1 beats per minute in the placebo group and 102.3+/-24.7 beats per minute in the dronedarone group (P<0.001); the corresponding rates in the non-European trial were 116.6+/-31.9 and 104.6+/-27.1 beats per minute (P<0.001). Rates of pulmonary toxic effects and of thyroid and liver dysfunction were not significantly increased in the dronedarone group.
Dronedarone was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining sinus rhythm and in reducing the ventricular rate during recurrence of arrhythmia.
Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit.
In ...this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock.
In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI, -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo.
Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).
PDF
