Classifying antiarrhythmic actions: by facts or speculation.
Classification of antiarrhythmic actions is reviewed in the context of the results of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trials, CAST 1 and 2. Six criticisms of the classification recently published (The Sicilian Gambit) are discussed in detail. The alternative classification, when stripped of speculative elements, is shown to be similar to the original classification. Claims that the classification failed to predict the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs for the selection of appropriate therapy have been tested by an example. The antiarrhythmic actions of cibenzoline were classified in 1980. A detailed review of confirmatory experiments and clinical trials during the past decade shows that predictions made at the time agree with subsequent results. Classification of the effects drugs actually have on functioning cardiac tissues provides a rational basis for finding the preferred treatment for a particular arrhythmia in accordance with the diagnosis.
Vaughan Williams
E M
EM
Hertford College, Oxford, United Kingdom.
D000818:Animals; D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / Q000145:classification* / Q000494:pharmacology; D001145:Arrhythmias, Cardiac / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000401:mortality; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D016700:Encainide / Q000009:adverse effects; D005424:Flecainide / Q000009:adverse effects; D006321:Heart / Q000187:drug effects; D006801:Humans; D007093:Imidazoles / Q000097:blood / Q000494:pharmacology
D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; D007093:Imidazoles; D005424:Flecainide; D016700:Encainide; C032151:cifenline