Antiarrhythmic versus antifibrillatory actions: Inference from experimental studies

Abstract

Pathophysiology of the coronary circulation is a major contributor to altering the myocardial substrate, rendering the heart susceptible to the onset of arrhythmias associated with sudden cardiac death. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death has been provided primarily on the basis of trial and error and in some instances based on ill-suited preclinical evaluations. The findings of the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) requires a reexamination of the manner in which antiarrhythmic drugs are developed before entering into clinical testing. The major deficiency in this area of experimental investigation has been the lack of animal models that would permit preclinical studies to identify potentially useful or deleterious therapeutic agents. Further, CAST has emphasized the need to distinguish between pharmacologic interventions that suppresses nonlethal disturbances of cardiac rhythm as opposed to those agents capable of preventing lethal ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Preclinical models for the testing of antifibrillatory agents must consider the fact that the superimposition of transient ischemic events on an underlying pathophysiologic substrate makes the heart susceptible to lethal arrhythmias. Proarrhythmic events, not observed in the normal heart, may become manifest only when the myocardial substrate has been altered. We describe a model of sudden cardiac death that may more closely simulate the clinical state in humans who are at risk. The experimental results show a good correlation with clinical data regarding agents known to reduce the incidence of lethal arrhythmias as well as those showing proarrhythmic actions.