Differential Effect of Adenosine on Anterograde and Retrograde Fast Pathway Conduction in Patients with Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia

Adenosine and Retrograde Fast Pathway Conduction . Introduction : Several studies have shown that the fast pathway is more responsive to adenosine than the slow pathway in patients with AV nodal reentrant tachycardia. Little information is available regarding the effect of adenosine on anterograde and retrograde fast pathway conduction.
Methods and Results : The effects of adenosine on anterograde and retrograde fast pathway conduction were evaluated in 116 patients (mean age 47 ± 16 years) with typical AV nodal reentrant tachycardia. Each patient received 12 mg of adenosine during ventricular pacing at a cycle length 20 msec longer than the fast pathway VA block cycle length and during sinus rhythm or atrial pacing at 20 msec longer than the fast pathway AV block cycle length. Anterograde block occurred in 98% of patients compared with retrograde fast pathway block in 62% of patients ( P < 0.001). Unresponsiveness of the retrograde fast pathway to adenosine was associated with a shorter AV block cycle length (374 ± 78 vs 333 ± 74 msec, P < 0.01), a shorter VA block cycle length (383 ± 121 vs 307 ± 49 msec, P < 0.001), and a shorter VA interval during tachycardia (53 ± 23 vs 41 ± 17 msec, P < 0.01).
Conclusion : Although anterograde fast pathway conduction is almost always blocked by 12 mg of adenosine, retrograde fast pathway conduction is not blocked by adenosine in 38% of patients with typical AV nodal reentrant tachycardia. This indicates that the anterograde and retrograde fast pathways may be anatomically and/or functionally distinct. Unresponsiveness of VA conduction to adenosine is not a reliable indicator of an accessory pathway.     

EFFECT OF CHRONIC TREATMENT WITH AMLODIPINE IN NON-INSULIN-DEPENDENT DIABETIC RATS

We have investigated the effects of amlodipine on streptozotocin- (STZ) induced neonatal non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) rats. NIDDM was induced by intraperitoneal injection of STZ (70 mg kg⁻¹) to 5-day-old rat pups. The animals were weaned at 30 days and maintained with food and waterad libitumfor 3 months. Amlodipine (5 mg kg⁻¹p.o.) was administered for 6 weeks after the animals were confirmed diabetic (3 months after the STZ injection). A group of control animals were also maintained and this group received citrate buffer 5 days after birth. Fasting- and fed-glucose levels in NIDDM rats were significantly higher than control rats. Treatment with amlodipine reduced the elevated fasting- and fed-glucose levels significantly. Results of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) revealed that glucose tolerance is impaired in the NIDDM rats. There was a marked increase in glucose levels after oral administration of glucose in the control NIDDM rats. Increased glucose levels were found to be associated with increased insulin levels. Treatment with amlodipine in the NIDDM rats caused a decrease in insulin release, however, glucose levels were found to be lowered significantly indicating that amlodipine causes an increase in insulin sensitivity. In conclusion, our data indicated that amlodipine increases insulin sensitivity in neonatal-STZ NIDDM rats.     

Long-Term Evaluation of the Ventricular Defibrillation Energy Requirement

Defibrillation Energy Requirements. Introduction : Defibrillation energy requirements in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillators may increase within several months after implantation. However, the stability of the defibrillation energy requirement beyond 1 year has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to characterize the defibrillation energy requirement during 2 years of clinical follow-up.
Methods and Results : Thirty-one consecutive patients with a biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillation system underwent defibrillation energy requirement testing using a step-down technique (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 J) during defibrillator implantation, and then 24 hours, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years after implantation. The mean defibrillation energy requirement during these evaluations was 10.9 ± 5.5 J, 12.3 ± 7.3 J, 11.7 ± 5.6 J, 10.2 ± 4.0 J, and 11.7 ± 7.4 J, respectively ( P = 0.4). The defibrillation energy requirement was noted to have increased by 10 J or more after 2 years of follow-up in five patients. In one of these patients, the defibrillation energy requirement was no longer associated with an adequate safety margin, necessitating revision of the defibrillation system. There were no identifiable clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who did and did not develop a 10-J or more increase in the defibrillation energy requirement.
Conclusion : The mean defibrillation energy requirement does not change significantly after 2 years of biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillator system implantation. However, approximately 15% of patients develop a 10-J or greater elevation in the defibrillation energy requirement, and 3% may require a defibrillation system revision. Therefore, a yearly evaluation of the defibrillation energy requirement may he appropriate.