Double-blind comparison of prenylamine and penbutolol in patients with angina pectoris.

This study was performed to re-evaluate the clinical position of prenylamine in the management of angina pectoris. After 1 week withdrawal of all anti-anginal agents, followed by another week of placebo administration, seventeen patients were allocated at random to 6 weeks treatment with either penbutolol 40 mg once a day or prenylamine 60 mg t.i.d. Clinical examination, exercise test and anginal attack rate were recorded every 2 weeks. Both drugs reduced the anginal attack rate. None of the drugs caused a significant increase in maximal workload or a significant change in ST-segment depression. Beside a substantially lower rate-pressure product at maximal comparable workload in the penbutolol group (p less than 0.001), no significant differences were observed between the two drugs. No adverse reactions were reported. From these results one can conclude that prenylamine and penbutolol do not differ in their anti-anginal effect. Therefore we are of the opinion that prenylamine has a place in the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of angina pectoris, particularly in patients where beta-blocking agents are contraindicated or in patients who have experienced side-effects of beta-blocking or calcium-entry blocking agents.

Recommendations for pacemaker implantation for the treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias and resynchronisation therapy for heart failure: A report from the task force on pacemaker indications of the Dutch Working Group on Cardiac Pacing.

Today, new pacing algorithms and stimulation methods for the prevention and interruption of atrial tachyarrhythmias can be applied on patients who need bradycardia pacing for conventional reasons. In addition, biventricular pacing as additive treatment for patients with severe congestive heart failure due to ventricular systolic dysfunction and prolonged intraventricular conduction has shown to improve symptoms and reduce hospital admissions. These new pacing technologies and the optimising of the pacing programmes are complex, expensive and time-consuming. Based on many clinical studies the indications for these devices are beginning to emerge. To support the cardiologist's decision-making and to prevent waste of effort and resources, the 'ad hoc committee' has provided preliminary recommendations for implantable devices to treat atrial tachyarrhythmias and to extend the treatment of congestive heart failure respectively.

Atrial overdriving is beneficial in patients with atrial arrhythmias: first results of the PROVE Study.

The AF Prevention by Overdriving (PROVE) trial is an ongoing prospective study of the effectiveness of atrial overdrive pacing combined with an Automatic Rest Rate function in the prevention of atrial arrhythmias. All patients who have received a Talent DR 213 pacemaker are eligible for enrollment into the study. After a 1-month monitoring period, the patients are divided into two groups. Group I includes patients with > or = 2 appropriate mode-switch (MS) episodes, or 1 MS episode of > or = 10 minutes, and/or > 300 atrial runs of > 5 beats/month. Group II includes all other patients. The number and duration of atrial arrhythmias are measured the pacemaker's Automatic Interpretation and Data Analysis software (AIDA). Patients' quality-of-life is measured by a validated functional status questionnaire. After having been grouped, the patients are randomly assigned, in a crossover design, to standard DDDR or overdrive pacing + Rest Rate, each programmed for a 3-month period. Preliminary results in 78 patients show a 34% reduction in the mean number of MS, and a mean 48% shortening of the overall duration of the episodes by overdrive pacing + Rest Rate, achieved by a mean 84% prevalence of atrial pacing. Overdrive pacing + Rest Rate was well tolerated and associated with a slight improvement in quality-of-life.