Intrapericardial ibutilide administration fails to terminate pacing-induced sustained atrial fibrillation in dogs.

PURPOSE: The hypothesis that intrapericardial (ip.) ibutilide administration would terminate pacing-induced sustained atrial fibrillation (AF) and ibutilide distribution were tested. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sustained (> or =24 hours) AF was induced by 59 +/- 20 day rapid atrial pacing in 19 dogs. After sustained AF was present, the atrial pacemaker was turned off and 9 open chest dogs received 0.015 mg/kg ibutilide (37 degrees C) in 30 ml saline into the pericardial sac. Ten control dogs received 30 ml saline (37 degrees C) ip. QT intervals, right ventricular monophasic action potential duration at 90% of repolarization (RV-MAPD(90)), AF mean cycle length (AFCL(m)), systolic- and diastolic intraarterial blood pressures, intrapericardial-, right atrial- and ventricular pressures, cardiac output and ibutilide concentrations were measured. If AF persisted after the 1st drug infusion, dual site rapid atrial pacing (DRAP) simultaneously from the high right atrium and coronary sinus was performed to terminate AF. If it was ineffective, a 2nd ip. drug infusion in the same fashion as the 1st one, was attempted. There was no significant difference in AF termination [5/9 (56%) in ibutilide treated and 3/10 (30%) in control dogs] between the two groups. DRAP never terminated AF. The AF duration did not differ between the two groups. Compared with control, ibutilide treatment prolonged significantly AFCL(m) (p < 0.001) and non-significantly QT, RV-MAPD(90). No significant difference was found in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and cardiac output between the two groups. The two orders of magnitude greater ibutilide concentration in the pericardial fluid than that in the femoral vein decreased rapidly over time, drug concentration was greatest in the atria, smaller in the ventricular myocardium, with a trend decreasing from the epi- to endocardium. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant atrial electrophysiological effect, ip. delivery of ibutilide did not result in higher AF termination rate compared with control.

Combined amiodarone and silymarin treatment, but not amiodarone alone, prevents sustained atrial flutter in dogs.

UNLABELLED: Amiodarone/Silymarin Treatment for Sustained Atrial Flutter. INTRODUCTION: Because amiodarone generates free radicals that may mediate amiodarone's toxicity, simultaneous therapy with an antioxidant might be beneficial if the antioxidant did not impair amiodarone's antiarrhythmic action. We tested whether simultaneous administration of a flavonoid antioxidant, silymarin, altered the electrophysiologic (EP) actions of amiodarone in 62 open chest dogs with electrically induced atrial flutter created by a Y-shaped right atrial incision. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen dogs received oral amiodarone (600 mg/day); 15 dogs received amiodarone (600 mg/day) and silymarin (70 mg bid); and 8 dogs received silymarin (70 mg bid) alone. All dosing was for 8 weeks; 24 control dogs received no drugs prior to induction of atrial flutter. Atrial flutter was induced by rapid right atrial pacing, and EP measurements were made before (presurgical) and after (postsurgical) creation of a Y-shaped right atrial incision. There was no difference in the frequency of induction of atrial flutter lasting >30 minutes among amiodarone-treated (8/15 [53%]), silymarin-treated (4/6 [67%]), and control (15/21 [71%]) groups, whereas the frequency of induction in the amiodarone+silymarin dogs (2/15 [13%]) was significantly reduced (P = 0.008) compared with the other three groups. Both amiodarone and amiodarone+silymarin treatment prolonged the presurgical and postsurgical right atrial effective refractory period (P = 0.012) compared with control; however, there was no significant difference in either parameter between the amiodarone+silymarin-treated and amiodarone-treated groups. The increase in atrial flutter mean cycle length (postsurgical minus presurgical) was significantly (P = 0.005) less in the amiodarone+silymarin-treated and control dogs compared with the amiodarone-treated dogs (16 +/- 11 msec for amiodarone+silymarin; 24 +/- 8 msec for control; and 42 +/- 14 msec for amiodarone treatment). Amiodarone+silymarin treatment resulted in a longer postsurgical right atrial refractory period (155 +/- 13 msec) than atrial flutter mean cycle length (154 +/- 19 msec), consistent with reduction and/or elimination of the excitable gap. Silymarin alone did not exert significant EP or antiarrhythmic action. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone exerted no preventative antiarrhythmic action in this atrial flutter model, probably because it could not reduce the excitable gap of atrial flutter. However, an antioxidant, silymarin, without a direct antiarrhythmic action, when administered together with amiodarone, potentiated amiodarone's antiarrhythmic actions and prevented sustained atrial flutter by reduction and/or elimination of the excitable gap.