JTCS Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alvarez, L.
Right arrow Articles by Millan, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Alvarez, L.
Right arrow Articles by Millan, I.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 109, Issue 5 899-904, Copyright © 1995 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association

NOTE: The fulltext of this article is not available online.


JOURNAL ARTICLE

Electrophysiologic effects of procainamide, mexiletine, and amiodarone on the transplanted heart. Experimental study

L. Alvarez, C. Escudero, A. Torralba and I. Millan
Experimental Surgery Service, Clinica Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.

The effects of procainamide, mexiletine, and amiodarone on automaticity, conduction, and refractoriness were studied in a model of heterotopic heart transplantation in dogs that combined an innervated heart (recipient) and a denervated transplanted heart (donor). After the surgical procedure, 500 mg procainamide (n = 13), 200 mg plus 0.1 mg/kg per minute mexiletine (n = 10), or 150 mg amiodarone (n = 10) was administered intravenously. During a baseline period and after drug administration, each heart was assessed for atrioventricular interval; cycle length; sinoatrial conduction time; atrioventricular node anterograde and retrograde block points; atrioventricular node and ventricular antegrade effective refractory periods; PR, QRS, and QT intervals on electrocardiogram; systemic arterial, pulmonary arterial, central venous, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressures; and cardiac output. In recipients, procainamide reduced cardiac output, depressed sinus automaticity, slowed conduction time without affecting the QRS interval, and prolonged the nodal and ventricular refractoriness; in donor hearts, it depressed automaticity and prolonged nodal refractoriness, but did not modify conduction or ventricular refractoriness. Mexiletine only moderately depressed sinus automaticity in recipient hearts; it did not affect the other parameters either in recipient or transplanted hearts, nor did it alter the hemodynamic situation. Amiodarone produced hypotension, reduced cardiac output, and prolonged all the electrophysiologic intervals except the QRS interval in recipient hearts. These changes were even more pronounced in the transplanted hearts and led to extreme sinus bradycardia in four cases. Of these three drugs, mexiletine appears to be the safest should treatment for arrhythmias be necessary in transplant recipients.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 1995 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.