Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 2006;114:104-109
Published online before print July 3, 2006, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.618421
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
114/2/104    most recent
CIRCULATIONAHA.106.618421v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hohnloser, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Connolly, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hohnloser, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Connolly, S. J.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
*Compound via MeSH
*Substance via MeSH
Hazardous Substances DB
*AMIODARONE HYDROCHLORIDE
*CARVEDILOL
*METOPROLOL
Medline Plus Health Information
*Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators
Related Collections
Right arrow Hypertrophy
Right arrow Ablation/ICD/surgery

(Circulation. 2006;114:104-109.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.


Arrhythmia/Electrophysiology

Effect of Amiodarone and Sotalol on Ventricular Defibrillation Threshold

The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) Trial

Stefan H. Hohnloser, MD; Paul Dorian, MD; Robin Roberts, MTech; Michael Gent, MSc; Carsten W. Israel, MD; Eric Fain, MD; Jean Champagne, MD; Stuart J. Connolly, MD

From the Department of Medicine, J.W. Goethe University (S.H.H., C.W.I.), Frankfurt, Germany; Department of Medicine, University of Toronto (P.D.), Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (R.R., M.G.) and Department of Medicine (S.J.C.), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; St Jude Medical (E.F.), Sunnyvale, Calif; and Department of Medicine, University de Laval (J.C.), Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Correspondence to Stefan H. Hohnloser, MD, J.W. Goethe University, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany. E-mail Hohnloser{at}em.uni-frankfurt.de

Received February 3, 2006; revision received April 26, 2006; accepted April 28, 2006.

Background— Many patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) receive adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy, most commonly amiodarone or sotalol. The effects of these drugs on defibrillation energy requirements have not been previously assessed in a randomized controlled trial.

Methods and Results— The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) trial was a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of amiodarone plus ß-blocker and sotalol versus ß-blocker alone for reduction of ICD shocks. Within OPTIC, a prospectively designed substudy evaluated the effects of the 3 treatment arms on defibrillation energy requirements. Defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were measured (binary step-down protocol) at baseline and again after 8 to 12 weeks of therapy in 94 patients, of whom 29 were randomized to receive ß-blocker therapy (control group), 35 to amiodarone plus ß-blocker, and 30 to sotalol. In the control group, the mean DFT decreased from 8.77±5.15 J at baseline to 7.13±3.43 J (P=0.027); in the amiodarone group, DFT increased from 8.53±4.29 to 9.82±5.84 J (P=0.091). In the sotalol group, DFT decreased from 8.09±4.81 to 7.20±5.30 J (P=0.21). DFT changes in the ß-blocker and the amiodarone group were significantly different (P=0.006). In all patients, adequate safety margins for defibrillation were maintained. No clinical variable predicted baseline DFT or changes in DFT on therapy.

Conclusion— Although amiodarone increased DFT, the effect size with modern ICD systems is very small. Therefore, DFT reassessment after the institution of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone or sotalol is not routinely required.


 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JAMAHome page
P. Vassallo and R. G. Trohman
Prescribing Amiodarone: An Evidence-Based Review of Clinical Indications
JAMA, September 19, 2007; 298(11): 1312 - 1322.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
J. C. Manegold, C. W. Israel, J. R. Ehrlich, G. Duray, D. Pajitnev, F. T. Wegener, and S. H. Hohnloser
External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in patients with implanted pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator systems: a randomized comparison of monophasic and biphasic shock energy application
Eur. Heart J., July 2, 2007; 28(14): 1731 - 1738.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
M. A. Wood and K. A. Ellenbogen
Follow-Up Defibrillator Testing for Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Probability and Uncertainty
Circulation, July 11, 2006; 114(2): 98 - 100.
[Full Text] [PDF]