Safety and feasibility of intravenous sotalol loading for the prevention of ventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: The use of intravenous (IV) sotalol loading following recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a 1-day loading protocol has reduced the obligatory 3-day hospital stay for sotalol initiation when given orally. Several studies have recently demonstrated the safety and feasibility of IV loading for patients with atrial arrhythmias. However, there is a paucity of data on the feasibility and safety of IV sotalol loading for patients with ventricular arrhythmias. This study aims to assess the safety, feasibility, and length of stay (LOS) outcomes of IV sotalol loading for the prevention of ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing IV sotalol loading and oral sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias, or IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias between August 2021 and December 2023 at Northwestern University. Baseline characteristics, success of sotalol initiation/loading, changes in heart rate (HR) and QT/QTc, safety, and LOS were compared between patients undergoing sotalol loading/initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (IV vs. PO) and between patients undergoing IV sotalol loading for ventricular arrhythmias vs. for atrial arrhythmias. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients underwent sotalol loading/initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (N = 15 IV and N = 13 PO) and 41 patients underwent IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias. Baseline characteristics of congestive heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fraction were worse in the ventricular arrhythmias group. There was no significant difference in the successful completion of IV sotalol loading for ventricular arrhythmias compared to oral sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias or IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias (86.7% vs. 92.3% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.88). There was a significant increase in ΔQTc following IV sotalol infusion for ventricular arrhythmias compared to following PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (46.4 ± 29.2 ms vs. 8.9 ± 32.6 ms, p = 0.004) and following IV sotalol infusion for atrial arrhythmias (46.4 ± 29.2 ms vs. 24.0 ± 25.1 ms, p = 0.018). ΔHR following IV sotalol infusion for ventricular arrhythmias was similar to ΔHR following PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias and ΔHR following IV sotalol infusion for atrial arrhythmias (- 7.5 ± 8.7 bpm vs. - 8.5 ± 13.9 bpm vs. - 8.3 ± 13.2 bpm, p = 0.87). There were no significant differences in discontinuation for QTc prolongation (6.7% vs. 1.7% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.64) and bradycardia (13.3% vs. 7.7% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.88) between IV sotalol loading for ventricular arrhythmias, PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias, and IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias. There were no instances of hypotension, life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, or death. Length of stay was significantly shorter for IV sotalol loading compared to PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (1.1 ± 0.36 days vs. 4.2 ± 1.0 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: IV sotalol loading appears feasible and safe for use in ventricular arrhythmias and results in a decreased length of stay. Despite increased comorbidities and greater increase in QTc interval following IV sotalol infusion in the ventricular arrhythmias group, there were no significant differences in successful completion of loading or adverse outcomes when compared to PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias and IV loading for atrial arrhythmias.

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.

Evaluation of image quality of wideband single-shot late gadolinium-enhancement MRI in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device.

INTRODUCTION: While wideband segmented, breath-hold late gadolinium-enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown to suppress image artifacts associated with cardiac-implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), it may produce image artifacts in patients with arrhythmia and/or dyspnea. Single-shot LGE is capable of suppressing said artifacts. We sought to compare the performance of wideband single-shot free-breathing LGE against the standard and wideband-segmented LGEs in CIED patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified all 54 consecutive patients (mean age: 61 ± 15 years; 31% females) with CIED who had undergone CMR with standard segmented, wideband segmented, and/or wideband single-shot LGE sequences as part of quality assurance for determining best clinical practice at 1.5 T. Two raters independently graded the conspicuity of myocardial scar or normal myocardium and the presence of device artifact level on a 5-point Likert scale (1: worst; 3: acceptable; 5: best). Summed visual score (SVS) was calculated as the sum of conspicuity and artifact scores (SVS ≥ 6 defined as diagnostically interpretable). Median conspicuity and artifact scores were significantly better for wideband single-shot LGE (F = 24.2, p < .001) and wideband-segmented LGE (F = 20.6, p < .001) compared to standard-segmented LGE. Among evaluated myocardial segments, 72% were deemed diagnostically interpretable-defined as SVS ≥ 6-for standard-segmented LGE, 89% were deemed diagnostically interpretable for wideband-segmented LGE, and 94% segments were deemed diagnostically interpretable for wideband single-shot LGE. CONCLUSIONS: Wideband single-shot LGE and wideband-segmented LGE produced similarly improved image quality compared to standard LGE.