当前位置： SCI文献检索 > EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL期刊下所有文献 > A multicentre, double-blind randomized crossover comparative study on the efficacy and safety of dofetilide vs sotalol in patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia and ischaemic heart disease.

A multicentre, double-blind randomized crossover comparative study on the efficacy and safety of dofetilide vs sotalol in patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia and ischaemic heart disease.

Abstract：

BACKGROUND:Antiarrhythmic drugs are still used for the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, in combination with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or without them. AIM OF THE STUDY:In a double-blind randomized crossover design, the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of oral dofetilide or oral sotalol were compared in 135 patients with ischaemic heart disease and inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia. METHODS:The inducibility of ventricular tachycardia was determined by programmed electrophysiological stimulation at baseline. Patients were then blindly randomized to receive either oral dofetilide 500 microg twice daily or oral sotalol 160 mg twice daily, for 3 to 5 days. Suppression of inducible ventricular tachycardia on the drug was then assessed by programmed electrophysiological stimulation. After a wash-out period of at least 2.5 days, the patients received the alternative treatment for 3 to 5 days. Suppression of inducible ventricular tachycardia on the alternate drug was again determined by programmed electrophysiological stimulation. Selection of long-term treatment was allocated blindly according to programmed electrophysiological stimulation results. RESULTS:During the acute phase, 128 patients received both dofetilide and sotalol. Sixty-seven patients were responders to either drug. Forty-six patients (35.9%) were responders to dofetilide compared with 43 (33.6%) to sotalol (P=ns). Only 23 patients responded to both dofetilide and sotalol. Adverse events, deemed to be treatment related, were seen in 2.3% of patients receiving dofetilide and 8.6% of patients receiving sotalol (P=0.016). Three patients on dofetilide had torsade de pointes. Two patients receiving sotalol died during the acute phase (one was arrhythmic death, and the other was due to heart failure). During the long-term phase, two of 42 patients (4.8%) receiving dofetilide and three of 27 patients (11.1%) receiving sotalol withdrew from treatment due to lack of efficacy. Overall, during the long-term phase, 23.8% of the patients receiving dofetilide and 37.0% of the patients receiving sotalol, withdrew from treatment with a similar pattern of withdrawals for the two drugs. CONCLUSION:Dofetilide was as efficacious as sotalol in preventing the induction of sustained ventricular tachycardia. There was no concordance in the response rate in two-thirds of the patients. Dofetilide was significantly better tolerated during the acute phase than sotalol. Both dofetilide and sotalol were well tolerated during the long term with no statistically significant difference in the adverse events.

journal_name

Eur Heart J

journal_title

European heart journal

authors

Boriani G,Lubinski A,Capucci A,Niederle R,Kornacewicz-Jack Z,Wnuk-Wojnar AM,Borggrefe M,Brachmann J,Biffi M,Butrous GS,Ventricular Arrhythmias Dofetilide Investigators.

doi

10.1053/euhj.2001.2679

subject

Has Abstract

pub_date

2001-12-01 00:00:00

pages

2180-91

issue

eissn

0195-668X

issn

1522-9645

pii

S0195668X0192679X

journal_volume

pub_type

临床试验,杂志文章,多中心研究,随机对照试验

在线工具

A multicentre, double-blind randomized crossover comparative study on the efficacy and safety of dofetilide vs sotalol in patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia and ischaemic heart disease.