Drug-induced post-repolarization refractoriness as an antiarrhythmic principle and its underlying mechanism.

AIMS: We hypothesized that amiodarone (AM), unlike d-sotalol (DS) (a 'pure' Class III agent), not only prolongs the action potential duration (APD) but also causes post-repolarization refractoriness (PRR), thereby preventing premature excitation and providing superior antiarrhythmic efficacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: We tested this hypothesis in 31 patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) during programmed stimulation with the use of the 'Franz' monophasic action potential (MAP) catheter with simultaneous pacing capability. We determined the effective refractory period (ERP) for each of three extrastimuli (S2-S4) and the corresponding MAP duration at 90% repolarization (APD90), both during baseline and on randomized therapy with either DS (n = 15) or AM (n = 16). We defined ERP > APD90 as PRR and ERP < APD90 as 'encroachment' on repolarization. A revised computer action potential model was developed to help explain the mechanisms of these in-vivo human-heart phenomena. Encroachment but not PRR was present in all patients at baseline and during DS treatment (NS vs. baseline), and VT was non-inducible in only 2 of 15 DS patients. In contrast, in 12 of 16 AM patients PRR was present (P < 0.001 vs. baseline), and VT was no longer inducible. Our model (with revised sodium channel kinetics) reproduced encroachment and drug-induced PRR. CONCLUSION: Both, AM and DS, prolonged APD90 but only AM produced PRR and prevented encroachment of premature extrastimuli. Our computer simulations suggest that PRR is due to altered kinetics of the slow inactivation of the rapid sodium current. This may contribute to the high antiarrhythmic efficacy of AM.

Upstream stimulation versus downstream stimulation: arrhythmogenesis based on repolarization dispersion in the human heart.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a ventricular tachycardia (VT) induction site has a shorter action potential duration (APD) and effective refractory period (ERP) than a noninducing site, resulting in collision against longer ERP ("upstream") as opposed to shorter ERP ("downstream," no collision). BACKGROUND: Induction of sustained VT is often feasible at one stimulation site while application of an identical pacing protocol to another site fails to provoke VT. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients undergoing programmed stimulation for VT inducibility had monophasic action potential recording/pacing catheters placed in the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) and right ventricular apex (RVA) simultaneously. Up to three extra-stimuli were introduced in 5 to 10 ms decrements until ERP was reached. Upon completion of a drive cycle at one stimulation site, it was repeated at the other. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients had inducible VT, nine exclusively by RVA pacing and nine exclusively by RVOT pacing. Action potential duration and ERP at the induction site were significantly shorter (12 +/- 15 ms, p <0.05 and 22 +/- 14 ms, p < 0.01, respectively, at 600 ms basic cycle length) than at the noninduction site. Dispersion of repolarization between corresponding APD at the two sites was 58 +/- 41 ms during baseline stimulation (S1) at the inducing site but only 37 +/- 23 ms at the noninducing site (p < 0.05). Dispersion increased during extra-stimulus application (p < 0.05), reaching a maximum of 75 +/- 45 ms during VT induction, but only 53 +/- 33 ms during extra-stimulation at the noninduction site. CONCLUSIONS: Site specificity of VT induction underscores the role of dispersion of repolarization and refractoriness in facilitating re-entry arrhythmias. Upstream stimulation at a site with short repolarization produces larger dispersion and facilitates VT induction.