Comparison of Oral Procainamide and Mexiletine Treatment of Recurrent and Refractory Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias

<b>Background:</b> Antiarrhythmic therapy for recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients having undergone catheter ablation and in whom amiodarone and/or beta-blockers were ineffective or contraindicated is a controversial issue. <b>Purpose:</b> The present study sought to compare the efficacy and tolerability of oral procainamide and mexiletine in patients with recurrent ventricular arrhythmias when the standard therapy strategy failed. <b>Methods:</b> All patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) treated with oral procainamide or mexiletine for recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in two cardiology divisions between January 2010 and January 2020 were enrolled. Patients were divided into group A (oral procainamide) and group B (mexiletine) and the two groups were compared to each other. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of therapy; the secondary endpoint was the discontinuation of therapy. All events that occurred during procainamide or mexiletine treatment were compared with a matched duration period before the initiation of the therapy. Antiarrhythmic therapy was considered effective when a ≥80% reduction of the sustained ventricular arrhythmias burden recorded by the ICD was achieved. <b>Results:</b> A total of 68 consecutive patients (61 males, 89.7%; mean age 74 ± 10 years) were included in this retrospective analysis. After a median follow-up of 19 months, 38 (56%) patients had a significant reduction in the VA burden. After multivariable adjustment, therapy with procainamide was independently associated with an almost 3-fold higher efficacy on VA suppression compared to mexiletine (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.06-6.14, <i>p</i> = 0.03). Only three patients (9%) treated with procainamide presented severe side effects (dyspnea or hypotension) requiring discontinuation of therapy compared with six patients (18%) treated with mexiletine who interrupted therapy because of severe side effects (<i>p</i> = 0.47). <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared to mexiletine, oral procainamide had a higher efficacy for the treatment of recurrent and refractory VAs, and showed a good profile of tolerability.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2024-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13206099
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.80
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Oral Procainamide and Mexiletine Treatment of Recurrent and Refractory Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias

Elisabetta Daleffe, Giacomo Mugnai, Daniele Muser, Claudio Bilato et al.
2 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
0.80
article

Comparison of Oral Procainamide and Mexiletine Treatment of Recurrent and Refractory Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias

Elisabetta Daleffe, Giacomo Mugnai, Daniele Muser, Claudio Bilato, Massimo Imazio, Mauro Toniolo, Luca Rebellato
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> Antiarrhythmic therapy for recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in patients having undergone catheter ablation and in whom amiodarone and/or beta-blockers were ineffective or contraindicated is a controversial issue. <b>Purpose:</b> The present study sought to compare the efficacy and tolerability of oral procainamide and mexiletine in patients with recurrent ventricular arrhythmias when the standard therapy strategy failed. <b>Methods:</b> All patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) treated with oral procainamide or mexiletine for recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in two cardiology divisions between January 2010 and January 2020 were enrolled. Patients were divided into group A (oral procainamide) and group B (mexiletine) and the two groups were compared to each other. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of therapy; the secondary endpoint was the discontinuation of therapy. All events that occurred during procainamide or mexiletine treatment were compared with a matched duration period before the initiation of the therapy. Antiarrhythmic therapy was considered effective when a ≥80% reduction of the sustained ventricular arrhythmias burden recorded by the ICD was achieved. <b>Results:</b> A total of 68 consecutive patients (61 males, 89.7%; mean age 74 ± 10 years) were included in this retrospective analysis. After a median follow-up of 19 months, 38 (56%) patients had a significant reduction in the VA burden. After multivariable adjustment, therapy with procainamide was independently associated with an almost 3-fold higher efficacy on VA suppression compared to mexiletine (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.06-6.14, <i>p</i> = 0.03). Only three patients (9%) treated with procainamide presented severe side effects (dyspnea or hypotension) requiring discontinuation of therapy compared with six patients (18%) treated with mexiletine who interrupted therapy because of severe side effects (<i>p</i> = 0.47). <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared to mexiletine, oral procainamide had a higher efficacy for the treatment of recurrent and refractory VAs, and showed a good profile of tolerability.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 13(20)
Ospedale Santa Maria della Misericordia di Udine (IT), International Renal Research Institute of Vicenza (IT)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
0.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.