Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2003
Should class III drugs be initiated in hospital to prevent drug-induced torsade de pointes arrhythmias?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Verduyn S C, Winckels S K G, Gorgels A P M, Doevendans P A, Vos M A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In the US, the FDA requires in-hospital institution of class III drugs. This study retrospectively assessed whether these criteria, which differ markedly from the Dutch exclusion criteria, could predict sotalol-induced torsade de pointes arrhythmias (TdP).
METHOD: Oral sotalol effect in a control group (50 patients, 62±12 years, 23 men, 27 women) was compared with five patients developing TdP (75±5years, all women), using known and new (JTU area measured in lead V2) risk parameters. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was the most common indication for sotalol treatment.
RESULTS: At baseline the strict US regulations would have identified four of five TdP patients on the basis of individual K+ levels, creatinine clearance and QTc. However, 7 of 49 controls would also have been excluded, although they did not develop documented TdP in the >2 years follow-up. Sotalol slightly increased QTc (361±34 to 387±33ms) in controls, due to heart rate reduction. In the TdP group, sotalol dramatically increased QTc (467±33 to 626±52 ms, +35%, p<0.05) accompanied by deep negative TU waves and an increased JTU area and all could be identified as risk patients.
CONCLUSION: Patients developing TdP on oral sotalol can be identified using the FDA risk criteria and hospitalisation may therefore be appropriate. A European prospective study is required to investigate the costs, sensitivity and specificity of this strategy.
METHOD: Oral sotalol effect in a control group (50 patients, 62±12 years, 23 men, 27 women) was compared with five patients developing TdP (75±5years, all women), using known and new (JTU area measured in lead V2) risk parameters. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was the most common indication for sotalol treatment.
RESULTS: At baseline the strict US regulations would have identified four of five TdP patients on the basis of individual K+ levels, creatinine clearance and QTc. However, 7 of 49 controls would also have been excluded, although they did not develop documented TdP in the >2 years follow-up. Sotalol slightly increased QTc (361±34 to 387±33ms) in controls, due to heart rate reduction. In the TdP group, sotalol dramatically increased QTc (467±33 to 626±52 ms, +35%, p<0.05) accompanied by deep negative TU waves and an increased JTU area and all could be identified as risk patients.
CONCLUSION: Patients developing TdP on oral sotalol can be identified using the FDA risk criteria and hospitalisation may therefore be appropriate. A European prospective study is required to investigate the costs, sensitivity and specificity of this strategy.