Conversion efficacy and safety of repeated doses of ibutilide in patients with atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation. Study Investigators.

BACKGROUND: A study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of ibutilide fumarate versus placebo in the acute termination of atrial flutter and fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-two patients aged 28 to 88 years with atrial flutter or fibrillation duration of 3 hours to 90 days were randomly assigned in a 5:1 ratio (ibutilide:placebo) to receive two 10-minute infusions, 10 minutes apart, of ibutilide (1 mg) or placebo. Patients were hospitalized and monitored by telemetry for 24 hours, with follow-up 72 hours later. Seventy-three (34.9%) of 209 evaluable ibutilide recipients had termination of atrial flutter or fibrillation within 1.5 hours compared with 0 (0%) of 41 placebo recipients. Those with atrial flutter had a higher success rate. At hour 24, 86.3% remained in normal or alternative sinus rhythm. Of the patients who received ibutilide, 2.3% experienced drug-related sustained polymorphic or monomorphic ventricular tachycardia and recovered after intervention. Additionally, 7.3% experienced nonsustained polymorphic or monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. Other frequent medical events in ibutilide recipients were generally also noted in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Ibutilide is effective and safe for acute termination of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

Conversion efficacy and safety of intravenous ibutilide compared with intravenous procainamide in patients with atrial flutter or fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of ibutilide versus procainamide for conversion of recent-onset atrial flutter or fibrillation. BACKGROUND: Ibutilide fumarate is an intravenous (IV) class III antiarrhythmic agent that has been shown to be significantly more effective than placebo in the pharmacologic conversion of atrial flutter and fibrillation to sinus rhythm. Procainamide is commonly used for conversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm. METHODS: One hundred twenty-seven patients (age range 22 to 92 years) with atrial flutter or fibrillation of 3 h to 90 days' (mean 21 days) duration were randomized to receive either two 10-min IV infusions of 1 mg of ibutilide fumarate, separated by a 10-min infusion of 5% dextrose in sterile water, or three successive 10-min IV infusions of 400 mg of procainamide hydrochloride. RESULTS: Of the 127 patients, 120 were evaluated for efficacy: 35 (58.3%) of 60 in the ibutilide group compared with 11 (18.3%) of 60 in the procainamide group had successful termination within 1.5 h of treatment (p < 0.0001). Seven patients were found to have violated the protocol and were not included in the final evaluation. In the patients with atrial flutter, ibutilide had a significantly higher success rate than procainamide (76% [13 of 17] vs. 14% [3 of 22], p=0.001). Similarly, in the atrial fibrillation group, ibutilide had a significantly higher success rate than procainamide (51% [22 of 43] vs. 21% [8 of 38], p=0.005). One patient who received ibutilide, which was found to be a protocol violation, had sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia requiring direct current cardioversion. Seven patients who received procainamide became hypotensive. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the superior efficacy of ibutilide over procainamide when administered to patients to convert either atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter to sinus rhythm. Hypotension was the major adverse effect seen with procainamide. A low incidence of serious proarrhythmia was seen with the administration of ibutilide occurring at the end of infusion.

Resting and maximal forearm skin blood flows are reduced in hypertension.

To find whether the vasodilator capacity of nonacral skin is reduced in hypertension, we measured forearm blood flow by venous occlusion plethysmography in 10 seated normotensive (mean +/- SD mean arterial pressure, 94 +/- 5 mm Hg) and 10 hypertensive (112 +/- 9 mm Hg) men at rest for 39 minutes while the forearm was heated with water at 42 degrees C, a maneuver known to selectively and maximally vasodilate skin. Blood pressure, measured every 5 minutes, did not change with heating. We found that in the normotensive group resting forearm blood flow was higher (3.64 +/- 1.12 versus 2.48 +/- 0.58 ml/100 ml tissue per minute, p less than 0.001; normotensive group versus hypertensive group) and resting forearm vascular resistance lower (30.17 +/- 10.99 versus 48.88 +/- 17.37 mm Hg.min.100 ml tissue per minute, p less than 0.05; normotensive group versus hypertensive group), and maximal forearm blood flow with local heating was higher (29.32 +/- 11.99 versus 18.19 +/- 4.50 ml/100 tissue per minute, p less than 0.018; normotensive group versus hypertensive group and vascular resistance lower (4.07 +/- 1.04 versus 6.54 +/- 1.17 mm Hg.min.100 ml tissue per minute, p less than 0.005; normotensive group versus hypertensive group). To find whether this degree and duration of local warming maximally vasodilated the skin in hypertensive subjects (as it does in normotensive subjects), we measured forearm skin blood flow before and during local heating plus 10 minutes of ischemia using a laser Doppler flowmeter.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)