Comparison of the effects on drug concentrations, electrophysiologic parameters, and termination of atrial fibrillation in dogs when procainamide and ibutilide are delivered into the right atrium versus intravenously.
BACKGROUND
We tested the hypothesis that right intra-atrial (i.a.) administration of antiarrhythmic drugs resulted in higher peak serum drug concentrations, greater electrophysiologic effects, and greater efficacy for termination of atrial fibrillation (AF) than intravenous (i.v.) drug delivery.


RESULTS
Eight dogs were treated with 9.7 mg/kg procainamide infusion and eight dogs with 0.02 mg/kg ibutilide infusion, injected over 5 minutes. Each dog had both an electrophysiologic (EP) and an AF termination study during i.a. and i.v. drug administration at > or = 2-day intervals (total four studies each). Right atrial pacing capture threshold, right atrial effective refractory period (ERP), right atrial and right ventricular monophasic action potential (MAP) durations at 70% and 90% of repolarization (MAPD70, MAPD90), AH, HV, and QT intervals, QRS width, intra-arterial systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and cardiac output were measured at different time-points. Blood samples were drawn from the coronary sinus and femoral vein for drug level determination. The right atrium was paced at 400-msec cycle length throughout the study. AF was induced by rapid right atrial pacing and maintained by methacholine infusion at 1.5 to 3 microg/kg/min. The sustained AF was allowed to persist for 10 minutes before starting the antiarrhythmic drug infusion. We found no significant difference between the procainamide concentrations in the coronary sinus and femoral vein during i.a. and i.v. drug delivery. The time course and extent of increase in right atrial ERP, MAPD70, MAPD90, and all the other measured EP parameters did not differ between the two routes of drug administration. No significant difference was found in termination of AF between i.v. (5/7 procainamide; 4/8 ibutilide) or i.a. (3/8 procainamide; 3/8 ibutilide) drug delivery or between drugs (8/15 procainamide; 7/16 ibutilide).


CONCLUSIONS
Our data do not support any beneficial effect of i.a. versus i.v. procainamide or ibutilide delivery.
Vereckei
A
A
Krannert Institute of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Warman
E
E
Mehra
R
R
Zipes
D P
DP
D000818:Animals; D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000097:blood* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001281:Atrial Fibrillation / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000503:physiopathology*; D003326:Coronary Circulation; D004285:Dogs; D004594:Electrophysiology; D005260:Female; D005268:Femoral Vein; D006325:Heart Atria; D006439:Hemodynamics; D007267:Injections; D007275:Injections, Intravenous; D008297:Male; D009994:Osmolar Concentration; D011342:Procainamide / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000097:blood* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D013449:Sulfonamides / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000097:blood* / Q000627:therapeutic use
D000889:Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; D013449:Sulfonamides; C067192:ibutilide; D011342:Procainamide