Improved method for evaluating ventriculoatrial conduction before implantation of atrial-sensing dual chamber pacemakers.

Pacemaker-mediated tachycardia may occur when a spontaneous ventricular premature depolarization is retrogradely conducted to the atrium with a ventriculoatrial (VA) interval that exceeds the atrial refractory period of an atrial-sensing dual chamber pacemaker. Previous methods for evaluating VA conduction have failed to predict clinical occurrences of pacemaker-mediated tachycardia. In this study, maximal VA intervals after ventricular extrastimuli during atrial or atrioventricular (AV) sequential pacing were compared with intervals measured by the standard method of ventricular pacing. VA intervals were 201 +/- 53 ms during ventricular pacing and 224 +/- 52 ms after ventricular extrastimuli during atrial pacing (p = NS). VA intervals were 305 +/- 77 ms after ventricular extrastimuli during AV sequential pacing and were longer than VA intervals during ventricular pacing (p less than 0.001) or after ventricular extrastimuli during atrial pacing (p less than 0.01). Thus, the ventricular extrastimulus technique during AV sequential pacing reveals substantially longer VA intervals than does ventricular pacing and explains why pacemaker-mediated tachycardia might occur when pacemaker atrial refractory periods are designed or programmed according to VA intervals measured only during ventricular pacing.

Conversion from intravenous to oral mexiletine in the acute management of repetitive ventricular arrhythmia.

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravenous mexiletine and a method for converting from intravenous to oral mexiletine therapy. Fifteen patients with repetitive ventricular ectopy (13 had ventricular tachycardia) received intravenous mexiletine at a rate of 10 mg/min for 30 to 60 minutes. Ventricular ectopy was suppressed with minimal side effects in 10 of 15 subjects. Oral mexiletine was begun immediately after completion of the intravenous infusion at a dose of 10 mg/kg/24 hr in the 10 responders to intravenous therapy. In eight, the oral dose was effective in suppressing the arrhythmia, but it induced side effects in three of them. In one of these three, dose reduction resulted in adequate arrhythmia control with acceptable toxicity. In the two who did not respond to the original dose, a larger dose (15 mg/kg/24 hr) induced arrhythmia control with acceptable side effects in one subject. Thus rapid control of nonsustained repetitive ventricular arrhythmia can be achieved with intravenous mexiletine in about two thirds of patients, and conversion to oral therapy can often be achieved smoothly without significant arrhythmia recurrence.