Assessment of Dofetilide or Sotalol Tolerability in the Elderly.

Background: Dofetilide and sotalol are potassium channel antagonists that require inpatient QTc monitoring during initiation, due to increased risk of fatal arrhythmias. Elderly patients are especially subject to an increased risk of fatal arrhythmias due to polypharmacy, comorbidities, and physiologic cardiac changes with aging. This study will describe the tolerability and risk factors associated with the initiation of sotalol or dofetilide in patients ≥80 years of age. Methodology: This is a multicenter, retrospective, descriptive study of patients ≥80 years old who were initiated on either dofetilide or sotalol between May 8, 2018 and July 31, 2021 at institutions within the Mayo Clinic Health System. The percentage of patients who received nonpackage insert recommended doses was identified. Incidence of and reasons for dose reductions or discontinuations due to safety-related events or clinical concerns during the initial loading period were collected. Results: The final analysis included 104 patients. The majority of patients (75%) received nonstandard initial doses of dofetilide or sotalol based on baseline estimated creatinine clearance or QTc. Overall, 39% (N = 41) of patients experienced a dose reduction or discontinuation due to a safety-related event or concern. Patients who received nonstandard initial doses of dofetilide or sotalol had 4.7 times greater odds of experiencing a safety-related event requiring dose reduction or discontinuation. Conclusion: Following package insert dosing in elderly patients increases safety and tolerability relative to more aggressive dosing of dofetilide or sotalol.

Idiopathic premature ventricular complexes treatment: Comparison of flecainide, propafenone, and sotalol.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers (BB) or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are still the first choices in the treatment of idiopathic premature ventricular complexes (PVCs), with low-modest efficacy. Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) of Ic class are moderate to highly efficient but the evidence on their benefits is still limited. AIM: To compare effectiveness and safety of flecainide, propafenone, and sotalol in the treatment of symptomatic idiopathic PVCs. METHODS: Our single-center retrospective study analyzed 104 consecutive patients with 130 medication episodes of frequent idiopathic PVCs treated with AADs flecainide, propafenone (Ic class) or sotalol (III class). The primary outcome was complete/near complete reduction of PVCs after medication episode (PVCs burden reduction >99%), and the secondary outcome was significant PVC burden reduction (≥80%). RESULTS: The complete/near complete PVCs burden reduction occurred in 31% and was significant in 43% of treated patients. A reduction of PVC burden for >99% was achieved in 56% of patients on flecainide, in 11% of patients on propafenone (p = .002), and in 21% of patients receiving sotalol (p = .031). There was no difference between propafenone and sotalol (p = .174). A reduction of PVC burden for ≥80% was achieved in 64% of patients on flecainide, in 30% of patients on propafenone (p = .009), and 33% of patients on sotalol (p = .020). There was no difference between propafenone and sotalol (p = .661). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of AADs class Ic and III in the treatment of idiopathic PVCs was modest. Flecainide was the most effective AAD in the achievement of complete/near complete or significant PVC burden reduction, compared to propafenone and sotalol.

Dronedarone Versus Sotalol in Antiarrhythmic Drug-Naive Veterans With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Sotalol and dronedarone are both used for maintenance of sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation. However, while sotalol requires initial monitoring for QT prolongation and proarrhythmia, dronedarone does not. These treatments can be used in comparable patients, but their safety and effectiveness have not been compared head to head. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the effectiveness and safety using data from a large health care system. METHODS: Using Veterans Health Administration data, we identified 11 296 antiarrhythmic drug-naive patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed dronedarone or sotalol in 2012 or later. We excluded patients with prior conduction disease, pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, ventricular arrhythmia, cancer, renal failure, liver disease, or heart failure. We used natural language processing to identify and compare baseline left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment arms. We used 1:1 propensity score matching, based on patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications, and Cox regression to compare strategies. To evaluate residual confounding, we performed falsification analysis with nonplausible outcomes. RESULTS: The matched cohort comprised 6212 patients (3106 dronedarone and 3106 sotalol; mean [±SD] age, 71±10 years; 2.5% female; mean [±SD] CHA2DS2-VASC, 2±1.3). The mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 55±11 and 58±10 for dronedarone and sotalol users, correspondingly. Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, did not demonstrate a significant association with risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.21]) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.68-1.16]). However, dronedarone was associated with significantly lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.74]) and symptomatic bradycardia (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.87]). The primary findings were stable across sensitivity analyses. Falsification analyses were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone, compared with sotalol, was associated with a lower risk of ventricular proarrhythmic events and conduction disorders while having no difference in risk of incident cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. These observational data provide the basis for prospective efficacy and safety trials.

The Arrhythmogenicity of Sotalol and its Role in Heart Failure: A Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: According to the American Heart Association, approximately 6 million adults have been afflicted with heart failure in the United States in 2020 and are more likely to have sudden cardiac death accounting for approximately 50% of the cause of mortality. Sotalol is a nonselective ß-adrenergic receptor antagonist with class III antiarrhythmic properties that has been mostly used for atrial fibrillation treatment and suppressing recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The use of sotalol in patients with left ventricular dysfunction is not recommended by the American College of Cardiology or American Heart Association because studies are inconclusive with conflicting results regarding safety. This article aims to review the mechanism of action of sotalol, the ß-blocking effects on heart failure, and provide an overview of clinical trials on sotalol use and its effects in patients with heart failure. Small- and large-scale clinical trials have been controversial and inconclusive about the use of sotalol in heart failure. Sotalol has been shown to reduce defibrillation energy requirements and reduce shocks from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Torsades de Pointes is the most life-threatening arrhythmia that has been documented with sotalol use and occurs more commonly in women and heart failure patients. Thus far, mortality benefits have not been demonstrated with sotalol use and larger multicenter studies are required going forward.

Sotalol in neonates for arrhythmias: Dosing, safety, and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: Various agents may be utilized to manage supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in neonates and infants. Recently, sotalol has piqued interest given its reported success in managing neonates and infants with SVTs, especially with the intravenous formulation. While the manufacturer recommends using an age-related nomogram in neonates and young infants to guide doses, clinical reports describe various dosing based on weight (mg/kg) or on body surface area (BSA) in mg/m2 . Given the reported variation in clinical practice with regard to dosing in neonates, there is a gap in the literature and translation into clinical practice regarding applicability of the nomogram into clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to describe sotalol doses based on body weight and BSA in neonates for SVT. METHODS: This is a single center retrospective study evaluating effective sotalol dosing from January 2011 and June 2021 (inclusive). Neonates who received intravenous (IV) or oral (PO) sotalol for SVT were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was to describe sotalol doses based on body weight and BSA. Secondary outcomes include comparison of doses to the manufacturer nomogram, description of dose titrations, reported adverse outcomes, and change in therapy. Two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to determine statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Thirty-one eligible patients were included in this study. The median (range) age and weight were 16.5 (1-28) days and 3.2 (1.8-4.9) kg, respectively. The median initial dose was 7.3 (1.9-10.8) mg/kg or 114.3 (30.9-166.7) mg/m2 /day. Fourteen (45.2%) of patients required a dose increase for SVT control. The median dose required for rhythm control was 8.5 (2-14.8) mg/kg/day or 120.7 (30.9-225) mg/m2 /day. Of note, the median recommended dose per manufacturer nomogram for our patients would have been 51.3 (16.2-73.8) mg/m2 /day, which is significantly lower than both the initial dose (p < .001) and final doses (p < .001) utilized in our study. A total of 7 (22.9%) patients were uncontrolled on sotalol monotherapy using our dosing regimen. Two patients (6.5%) had reports of hypotension and one patient (3.3%) had a report of bradycardia requiring discontinuation of therapy. The average change in baseline QTC following sotalol initiation was 6.8%. Twenty-seven (87.1%), 3 (9.7%), 1 (3.3%) experienced prolongation, no change, or a decrease in QTc, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a sotalol strategy significantly higher than the manufacture dose recommendations are required for rhythm control in neonates with SVT. There were few adverse events reported with this dosing. Further prospective studies would be advantageous to confirm these findings.

Dronedarone versus sotalol in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited comparative data on safety and efficacy within commonly used Vaughan-Williams (VW) class III antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that dronedarone and sotalol, two commonly prescribed VW class III AADs with class II properties, have different safety and efficacy effects in patients with nonpermanent AF. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted searching MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to June 15, 2021 (NCT05279833). Clinical trials and observational studies that evaluated safety and efficacy of dronedarone or sotalol in adults with AF were included. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to quantify comparative safety and efficacy. Where feasible, we performed sensitivity analyses by including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Of 3581 records identified through database searches, 37 unique studies (23 RCTs, 13 observational studies, and 1 nonrandomized trial) were included in the NMA. Dronedarone was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause death versus sotalol (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.38 [95% credible interval, CrI: 0.19, 0.74]). The association was numerically similar in the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.46 [95% CrI: 0.21, 1.02]). AF recurrence and cardiovascular death results were not significantly different between dronedarone and sotalol in all-studies and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The NMA findings indicate that, across all clinical trials and observational studies included, dronedarone compared with sotalol was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, but with no difference in AF recurrence.

Feasibility and Safety of Intravenous Sotalol Loading in Adult Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (DASH-AF).

BACKGROUND: Inpatient initiation of sotalol is recommended owing to its proarrhythmic effects. OBJECTIVES: The DASH-AF (Feasibility and Safety of Intravenous Sotalol Administered as a Loading Dose to Initiate Oral Sotalol Therapy in Adult Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial evaluates the safety and feasibility of intravenous (IV) sotalol, achieving a steady state with maximum QTc prolongation within 6 hours instead of the traditional 5-dose inpatient oral (PO) titration. METHODS: DASH-AF is a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, open-label trial consisting of patients who underwent IV sotalol loading dose to initiate rapid oral therapy for atrial arrhythmias. IV dose was calculated based on the target oral dose as indicated by baseline QTc and renal function. Patients' QTc (in sinus) was measured via electrocardiography at 15-minute intervals and after IV loading completion. Patients were discharged 4 hours after first oral dose. All patients were monitored via mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry for 72 hours. The control group was composed of patients admitted for the traditional 5 PO doses. Safety outcomes were assessed in both groups. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients from 3 centers were enrolled from 2021 to 2022 in the IV loading group (compared with type of AF- and renal function-matched patients in the conventional PO loading cohort). This study demonstrated no significant change in ΔQTc in both groups, with a significantly lower number of patients requiring dose adjustment in the IV arm compared with the PO arm (4.1% vs 16.6%; P = 0.003). This led to potential cost savings of up to $3,500.68 per admission. CONCLUSIONS: The DASH-AF trial shows that rapid IV sotalol loading in atrial fibrillation/flutter patients for rhythm control is feasible and safe compared with conventional oral loading with significant cost reduction. (Feasibility and Safety of Intravenous Sotalol Administered as a Loading Dose to Initiate Oral Sotalol Therapy in Adult Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [DASH-AF]; NCT04473807).

Protocol Development and Initial Experience With Intravenous Sotalol Loading for Atrial Arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Oral sotalol is a class III antiarrhythmic commonly used for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of IV sotalol loading, based primarily on modeling data for the infusion. We aimed to describe a protocol and experience with IV sotalol loading for elective treatment of adult patients with AF and atrial flutter (AFL). METHODS: We present our institutional protocol and retrospective review of initial patients treated with IV sotalol for AF/AFL at the University of Utah Hospital between September 2020 and April 2021. RESULTS: Eleven patients received IV sotalol for initial loading or dose escalation. All patients were male, aged 56-88 years (median 69). Mean QT interval (QTc) intervals increased from baseline (mean 384 ms) immediately after infusion of IV sotalol (mean change 42ms), but no patient required discontinuation of the medication. Six patients were discharged after 1 night; 4 patients were discharged after 2 nights; and 1 patient was discharged after 4 nights. Nine patients underwent electrical cardioversion prior to discharge (2 prior to load; 7 post-load on the day of discharge). There were no adverse events during the infusion or within 6 months of discharge. Persistence of therapy was 73% (8 of 11) at mean 9.9 weeks to follow up, with no discontinuations for adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: We employed a streamlined protocol that was successfully implemented to facilitate the use of IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias. Our initial experience suggests feasibility, safety, and tolerability while reducing hospitalization duration. Additional data are needed to augment this experience as IV sotalol use is broadened across different patient populations.

Implementation of an intravenous sotalol initiation protocol: Implications for feasibility, safety, and length of stay.

INTRODUCTION: Oral sotalol initiation requires a multiple-day, inpatient admission to monitor for QT prolongation during loading. A 1-day intravenous (IV) sotalol loading protocol was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in March 2020, but limited data on clinical use and administration currently exists. This study describes implementation of an IV sotalol protocol within an integrated health system, provides initial efficacy and safety outcomes, and examines length of stay (LOS) compared with oral sotalol initiation. METHODS: IV sotalol was administered according to a prespecified initiation protocol to adult patients with refractory atrial or ventricular arrhythmias. Baseline characteristics, safety and feasibility outcomes, and LOS were compared with patients receiving oral sotalol over a similar time period. RESULTS: From January 2021 to June 2022, a total of 29 patients (average age 66.0 ± 8.6 years, 27.6% women) underwent IV sotalol load and 20 patients (average age 60.4 ± 13.9 years, 65.0% women) underwent oral sotalol load. The load was successfully completed in 22/29 (75.9%) patients receiving IV sotalol and 20/20 (100%) of patients receiving oral sotalol, although 7/20 of the oral sotalol patients (35.0%) required dose reduction. Adverse events interrupting IV sotalol infusion included bradycardia (seven patients, 24.1%) and QT prolongation (three patients, 10.3%). No patients receiving IV or oral sotalol developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias before discharge. LOS for patients completing IV load was 2.6 days shorter (mean 1.0 vs. 3.6, p < .001) compared with LOS with oral load. CONCLUSION: IV sotalol loading has a safety profile that is similar to oral sotalol. It significantly shortens hospital LOS, potentially leading to large cost savings.

Effects of high glucose and insulin on the electrophysiological properties of cardiomyocytes derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells. / é«˜ç³–ä¸Žèƒ°å²›ç´ å¯¹äººè¯±å¯¼å¤šæ½œèƒ½å¹²ç»†èƒžæ¥æºçš„å¿ƒè‚Œç»†èƒžç”µç”Ÿç†ç‰¹æ€§çš„å½±å“.

OBJECTIVES: The risk of arrhythmia increases in diabetic patients. However, the effects of hyperglycemia and insulin therapy on the electrophysiological properties of human cardiomyocytes remain unclear. This study is to explore the effects of high glucose and insulin on the electrophysiological properties and arrhythmias of cardiomyocytes derived from human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC-CMs). METHODS: Immunofluorescent staining and flow cytometry were used to analyze the purity of hiPSC-CMs generated from human skin fibroblasts of a healthy donor. The hiPSC-CMs were divided into 3 group (treated with normal medium, high glucose and insulin for 4 days): a control group (NM group, containing 5 mmol/L glucose), a high glucose group (HG group, containing 15 mmol/L glucose), and a high glucose combined with insulin (HG+INS group, containing 15 mmol/L glucose+100 mg/L insulin). Electrophysiological changes of hiPSC-CMs were detected by microelectrode array (MEA) before or after treatment with glucose and insulin, including beating rate (BR), field potential duration (FPD) (similar to QT interval in ECG), FPDc (FPD corrected by BR), spike amplitude and conduction velocity (CV). Effects of sotalol on electrophysiological properties and arrhythmias of hiPSC-CMs were also evaluated. RESULTS: The expression of cardiac-specific marker of cardiac troponin T was high in the hiPSC-CMs. The purity of hiPSC-CMs was 99.06%. Compared with the NM group, BR was increased by (9.14±0.8)% in the HG group (P<0.01). After treatment with high glucose, FPD was prolonged from (460.4±9.0) ms to (587.6±23.7) ms in the HG group, while it was prolonged from (462.5±14.5) ms to (512.6±17.6) ms in the NM group. Compared with the NM group, FPD of hiPSC-CMs was prolonged by (16.8±1.4)% in the HG group (P<0.01). The FPDc of hiPSC-CMs was prolonged from (389.1±13.7) ms to (478.3±31.5) ms in the HG group, and that was prolonged from (387.7±21.6) ms to (422.6±32.9) ms in the NM group. Compared with the NM group, the FPDc of hiPSC-CMs was prolonged by (13.9±1.3)% in HG group (P<0.01). The spike amplitude and CV remained unchanged between the HG group and the NM group (P>0.05). Ten µmol/L of sotalol can induce significant arrhythmias from all wells in the HG group. After treatment with insulin and high glucose, compared with the HG group, BR was increased by (8.3±0.5)% in the HG+INS group (P<0.05). The FPD was prolonged from (463.4±9.7) ms to (532.6±12.8) ms in the HG+INS group, while it was prolonged from (460.4±9.0) ms to (587.6±23.7) ms in the HG group. Compared with the HG group, the FPD of hiPSC-CMs was shortened by (12.7±1.9)% in the HG+INS group (P<0.01). The FPDc of hiPSC-CMs was prolonged from (387.4±4.1) ms to (422.4±10.0) ms in the HG+INS group, and that was prolonged from (384.8±4.0) ms to (476.3±11.5) ms in HG group. Compared with the HG group, the FPDc of hiPSC-CMs was shortened by (14.7±1.1)% in HG group (P<0.01). After the insulin treatment, the spike amplitude of hiPSC-CMs was increased from (3.12±0.46) mV to (4.35±0.64) mV in the HG+INS group, while it was enhanced from (3.06±0.35) mV to (3.33±0.41) mV in the HG group. The spike amplitude of hiPSC-CMs was increased by (30.8±3.7)% in the HG+INS group compared with that in the HG group (P<0.05). The CV in the HG+INS group was increased from (0.23±0.08) mm/ms to (0.32±0.08) mm/ms after insulin treatment, which was increased from (0.21±0.04) mm/ms to (0.30±0.07) mm/ms in the HG group, but there was no significant difference in CV between the HG+INS group and the HG group (P>0.05). The induction experiment showed that 10 µmol/L of sotalol could prolong the FPDc of hiPSC-CMs by (78.9±11.6)% in the HG+INS group, but no arrhythmia was induced in each well. CONCLUSIONS: High glucose can induce FPD/FPDc of hiPSC-CMs prolongation and increase the risk of arrhythmia induced by drugs. Insulin can reduce the FPD/FPDc prolongation and the risk of induced arrhythmia by high glucose.These results are important to understand the electrophysiological changes of the myocardium in diabetic patients and the impact of insulin therapy on its electrophysiology. Further study on the mechanism may provide new ideas and methods for the treatment of acquired and even inherited long QT syndrome.

Pharmacological characterisation of electrocardiogram J-Tpeak interval in conscious Guinea pigs.

Drug-induced human ether-à-go-go-related gene (hERG) channel block and QT interval prolongation increase torsade de pointes (TdP) risk. However, some drugs block hERG channels and prolong QT interval with low TdP risk, likely because they block additional inward currents. We investigated the utility of J-Tpeak interval, a novel biomarker of inward current block and TdP risk, in conscious telemetered guinea pigs. Electrocardiogram parameters were analysed in Hartley guinea pigs orally administered one of eight test compounds (dofetilide, flecainide, nifedipine, quinidine, quinine, ranolazine, sotalol, verapamil) or vehicle alone as controls. Heart rate-corrected QT (QTcX) and J-Tpeak (J-TpeakcX) were calculated to evaluate the relations of QT-RR and J-Tpeak-RR. Dofetilide and sotalol significantly increased ΔQTcX and ΔJ-TpeakcX intervals to similar degrees. Quinidine, quinine and flecainide also increased ΔQTcX and ΔJ-TpeakcX intervals, but the degrees of ΔJ-TpeakcX interval prolongation were shorter than those of ΔQTcX interval prolongation. Ranolazine showed slight increasing trends in ΔQTcX and ΔJ-TpeakcX intervals, but the differences were not significant. Verapamil and nifedipine did not increase the ΔQTcX or ΔJ-TpeakcX intervals. Based on the relations of ΔΔJ-TpeakcX and ΔΔQTcX intervals, dofetilide, sotalol and quinidine were classified as high risk for TdP, quinine, flecainide and ranolazine were classified as intermediate risk and verapamil and nifedipine were classified as low risk. These results supported the usefulness of J-Tpeak interval assessment in conscious guinea pigs for predicting drug-induced balanced block of inward currents and TdP risk in early-stage preclinical studies.

IV Sotalol Use in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Patients: A Multicenter Registry Study.

Background There is limited information regarding the clinical use and effectiveness of IV sotalol in pediatric patients and patients with congenital heart disease, including those with severe myocardial dysfunction. A multicenter registry study was designed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and dosing of IV sotalol. Methods and Results A total of 85 patients (age 1 day-36 years) received IV sotalol, of whom 45 (53%) had additional congenital cardiac diagnoses and 4 (5%) were greater than 18 years of age. In 79 patients (93%), IV sotalol was used to treat supraventricular tachycardia and 4 (5%) received it to treat ventricular arrhythmias. Severely decreased cardiac function by echocardiography was seen before IV sotalol in 7 (9%). The average dose was 1 mg/kg (range 0.5-1.8 mg/kg/dose) over a median of 60 minutes (range 30-300 minutes). Successful arrhythmia termination occurred in 31 patients (49%, 95% CI [37%-62%]) with improvement in rhythm control defined as rate reduction permitting overdrive pacing in an additional 18 patients (30%, 95% CI [19%-41%]). Eleven patients (16%) had significant QTc prolongation to >465 milliseconds after the infusion, with 3 (4%) to >500 milliseconds. There were 2 patients (2%) for whom the infusion was terminated early. Conclusions IV sotalol was safe and effective for termination or improvement of tachyarrhythmias in 79% of pediatric patients and patients with congenital heart disease, including those with severely depressed cardiac function. The most common dose, for both acute and maintenance dosing, was 1 mg/kg over ~60 minutes with rare serious complications.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Sotalol Versus Dronedarone After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Background Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common after atrial fibrillation ablation, so adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy is often used. Data on the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone and sotalol after AF ablation are limited. Here, we compared health outcomes of ablated patients treated with dronedarone versus sotalol. Methods and Results A comparative analysis of propensity score-matched retrospective cohorts was performed using IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Patients treated with dronedarone after atrial fibrillation ablation were matched 1:1 to patients treated with sotalol between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2018. Outcomes of interest included cardiovascular hospitalization, proarrhythmia, repeat ablation, and cardioversion. This study was exempt from institutional review board review. Among 30 696 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation, 2086 were treated with dronedarone and 3665 with sotalol after ablation. Propensity-score matching resulted in 1815 patients receiving dronedarone matched 1:1 to patients receiving sotalol. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was lower with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.97]), 6 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.93]), and 12 months after ablation (aHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.93]). Risk of repeat ablation and cardioversion generally did not differ between the 2 groups. A lower risk of proarrhythmia was associated with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64-0.90]), 6 months (aHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.93]), and 12 months (aHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.94]) after ablation. Conclusions These data suggest that dronedarone may be a more effective and safer alternative after ablation than sotalol.

Influence of baseline QTc on sotalol-induced prolongation of ventricular repolarization in men and women.

The extent of sotalol-induced QTc prolongation on the electrocardiogram, is variable among subjects and influenced by sex. However, the influence of baseline QTc on the extent of drug-induced QTc prolongation remains unclear. This was studied around peak plasma concentration in a large cohort of 376 healthy male and 614 healthy female subjects who received 80 mg of sotalol orally. Baseline QTc was 379 ± 16 ms in men and 393 ± 15 ms in women (P < .0001). The change in QTc from baseline was highly variable among both sexes and was greater in women than in men (26.5 ± 13.2 vs.13.0 ± 10.8 ms; P < .0001). The slope of the regression line between QTc on sotalol and baseline QTc did not significantly differ from unity in men and in women, indicating that the extent of QTc prolongation with sotalol was not influenced by baseline QTc. Assessing QTc after administration of an IKr blocker may be more important than measuring a baseline QTc.

Economics and outcomes of sotalol in-patient dosing approaches in patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: There exists variability in the administration of in-patient sotalol therapy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). The impact of this variability on patient in-hospital and 30-day posthospitalization costs and outcomes is not known. Also, the cost impact of intravenous sotalol, which can accelerate drug loading to therapeutic levels, is unknown. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three AF patients admitted for oral sotalol initiation at an Intermountain Healthcare Hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 were included. Patient and dosing characteristics were described descriptively and the impact of dosing schedule was correlated with daily hospital costs/clinical outcomes during the index hospitalization and for 30 days. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement for 3-day sotalol initiation is $9263.51. Projections of cost savings were made considering a 1-day load using intravenous sotalol that costs $2500.00 to administer. RESULTS: The average age was 70.3 ± 12.3 years and 60.2% were male with comorbidities of hypertension (83%), diabetes (36%), and coronary artery disease (53%). The mean ejection fraction was 59.9 ± 7.8% and the median corrected QT interval was 453.7 ± 37.6 ms before sotalol dosing. No ventricular arrhythmias developed, but bradycardia (<60 bpm) was observed in 37.6% of patients. The average length of stay was 3.9 ± 4.6 (median: 2.2) days. Postdischarge outcomes and rehospitalization rates stratified by length of stay were similar. The cost per day was estimated at $2931.55 (1. $2931.55, 2. $5863.10, 3. $8794.65, 4. $11 726.20). CONCLUSIONS: In-patient oral sotalol dosing is markedly variable and results in the potential of both cost gain and loss to a hospital. In consideration of estimated costs, there is the potential for $871.55 cost savings compared to a 2-day oral load and $3803.10 compared to a 3-day oral load.

"Second line medications" for supraventricular arrhythmias in children: In-hospital efficacy and adverse events during treatment initiation of sotalol and flecainide.

INTRODUCTION: Sotalol and flecainide are used as second line agents in children for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias (SA) refractory to anti-beta adrenergic antiarrhythmics or digoxin. Efficacy and adverse events in this cohort have not been well described. Here, we report our institutional experience of second line treatment initiation for SA in children. METHODS AND RESULTS: Utilizing an institutional database, 247 patients initiated on sotalol and 81 patients initiated on flecainide were identified. Congenital heart disease (CHD) was present in 40% of patients. Arrhythmia-free discharge on single or dual agent therapy (in combination with other antiarrhythmics) was 87% for sotalol and 91% for flecainide. Neither age, sex, dosing, presence of CHD nor arrhythmia subtype were associated with alterations in in-hospital efficacy. Compared to baseline, QTc intervals in sotalol patients (436 [416-452 ms] vs. 415 [400-431 ms], p < .01) and QRS intervals in flecainide patients (75 [68-88 ms] vs. 62 [56-71 ms], p < .01) were prolonged. Dose reduction or discontinuation due to QRS prolongation occurred in 9% of patients on flecainide. QTc prolongation resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation of sotalol was encountered in 9 patients (4%) and death with documented torsade de pointes in 2 patients (1%), with 9 of 11 patients having underlying CHD. CONCLUSION: In children requiring second line agents for treatment of SA, both sotalol and flecainide appear to be highly efficacious. Although predominantly safe in otherwise healthy patients, electrocardiogram changes can occur and children with underlying cardiac disease may have an increased risk of adverse events and rhythm-related side effects during initiation.

Do beta-adrenergic blocking agents increase asthma exacerbation? A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (abbreviated as beta-blockers) have been used for treating various cardiovascular diseases. However, the potential for asthma exacerbation is one of the major adverse effects of beta-blockers. This study aimed to compare the level of risk for an asthma attack in patients receiving various beta-blockers. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either placebo-controlled or active-controlled design. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted under a frequentist model. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthmatic attack. A total of 24 RCTs were included. Overall NMA revealed that only oral timolol [risk ratio (RR) = 3.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-10.85)] and infusion of propranolol [RR = 10.19 (95% CI 1.29-80.41)] were associated with significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than the placebo, whereas oral celiprolol [RR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.04-4.11)], oral celiprolol and propranolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02-11.65)], oral bisoprolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02-11.65)], oral atenolol [RR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.20-1.28)], infusion of practolol [RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.03-25.14)], and infusion of sotalol [RR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.08-10.65)] were associated with relatively lower incidences of asthma attack than the placebo. In participants with a baseline asthma history, in addition to oral timolol and infusion of propranolol, oral labetalol, oxprenolol, propranolol, and metoprolol exhibited significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than did the placebo. In conclusion, oral timolol and infusion of propranolol were associated with a significantly higher risk of developing an asthma attack in patients, especially in those with a baseline asthma history, and should be avoided in patients who present a risk of asthma.Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020190540.

Assessment of Drug Proarrhythmic Potential in Electrically Paced Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Ventricular Cardiomyocytes Using Multielectrode Array.

Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) have been widely used for the assessment of drug proarrhythmic potential through multielectrode array (MEA). HiPSC-CM cultures beat spontaneously with a wide range of frequencies, however, which could affect drug-induced changes in repolarization. Pacing hiPSC-CMs at a physiological heart rate more closely resembles the state of in vivo ventricular myocytes and permits the standardization of test conditions to improve consistency. In this study, we systematically investigated the time window of stable ion currents in high-purity hiPSC-derived ventricular cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-vCMs) and confirmed that these cells could be used to correctly predict the proarrhythmic risk of Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) reference compounds. To evaluate drug proarrhythmic potentials at a physiological beating rate, we used a MEA to electrically pace hiPSC-vCMs, and we recorded regular field potential waveforms in hiPSC-vCMs treated with DMSO and 10 CiPA reference drugs. Prolongation of field potential duration was detected in cells after exposure to high- and intermediate-risk drugs; in addition, drug-induced arrhythmia-like events were observed. The results of this study provide a simple and feasible method to investigate drug proarrhythmic potentials in hiPSC-CMs at a physiological beating rate.

Intravenous Sotalol in the Young: Safe and Effective Treatment With Standardized Protocols.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the safety and efficacy of novel and standardized protocols for the use of intravenous (IV) sotalol in pediatric patients. BACKGROUND: Acute arrhythmia treatments in children remain limited. IV sotalol is a new option but pediatric experience is limited. There is no standardized protocol for rapid infusion during acute arrhythmias. This study assessed a single center's initial experience with IV sotalol in young patients, describing a protocol for rapid infusion for acute treatment, and reviewed the safety and efficacy of maintenance dosing. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients who received IV sotalol at Rady Children's Hospital. Demographics, arrhythmia, hemodynamics, and effects of IV sotalol were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients received IV sotalol from December 2015 to December 2018. Group 1 (n = 26) received sotalol for acute therapy and group 2 (n = 11) received a maintenance dose of sotalol after successful cardioversion with alternate therapies. The groups had similar demographics. Group 1 included patients with atrial flutter (n = 16), patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) (n = 9), and patients with atrial ectopic tachycardia (AET) (n = 1). All 9 patients with SVT (100%) converted to sinus rhythm after failure to convert using adenosine. Median administration time was 15 min, the median dose was 30 mg/m2, and mean time to cardioversion was 14 min. Group 2 median infusion time was 120 min, the median dose was 54 mg/m2/day, and all patients maintained sinus rhythm. No patients required cessation for adverse effects previously described for IV sotalol. CONCLUSIONS: IV sotalol was safe and effective for acute and maintenance therapy in young patients. In acute patients, 30 mg/m2 over 15 min converted most patients. IV sotalol adds a valuable option to IV therapies in the young.