Metoprolol versus sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia

Matthias Antz, Riccardo Cappato, Karl Heinz Kuck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The efficacy of sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias has been proved; however, whether its antiarrhythmic effect is due to a β-blocking activity, a class III antiarrhythmic activity, or a combination of both is not known. We conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the effects of metoprolol, a "pure" β-blocking agent, and of sotalol, a β-blocking agent with additional class III antiarrhythmic properties, in 34 consecutive patients with documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) unrelated to transient causes. After undergoing baseline programmed electrical stimulation (PES-1) to assess arrhythmia inducibility, the patients were randomly assigned to a (double-blind) treatment of either metoprolol (16 patients) or sotalol (18 patients). Before the chronic regimen was initiated, arrhythmia inducibility was reassessed after the intravenous administration of either 0.15 mg/kg metoprolol or 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (PES-2), according to drug assignment. During the chronic oral regimen, a third PES (PES-3) was performed after a median follow-up of 72 days. Resting and exercise ECG, Holter monitoring and echocardiography were performed at baseline and during follow-up. During a 2-year follow-up, a nonfatal arrhythmia recurred in 1 patient of the metoprolol arm and in 5 patients of the sotalol arm; 1 patient in the latter group died suddenly 2 months after the recurrence, while receiving amiodarone therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence, sudden death, or total mortality between the two groups. During PES-1, a sustained ventricular arrhythmia was inducible in 18 of 34 patients (53%), 8 in the metoprolol and 10 in the sotalol arm. As compared with oral metoprolol, oral sotalol significantly reduced arrhythmia inducibility, but this finding did not correlate with clinical outcome. Neither drug proved superior in preventing the recurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia or spontaneous or induced ischemic events. Logistic regression showed that gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the number of stenotic coronary arteries, and the occurrence of ischemic events did not predict the outcome. Results suggest that metoprolol is as efficacious as sotalol in the treatment of stable monomorphic VT. Whether the treatment of such patients with a pure p-blocking agent, with a class III antiarrhythmic agent, or with a drug combining both properties may more relevantly affect the clinical outcome in these patients remains to be investigated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)627-635
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology
Volume26
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1995

Fingerprint

Sotalol
Metoprolol
Ventricular Tachycardia
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Therapeutics
Recurrence
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Ambulatory Electrocardiography
Intention to Treat Analysis
Amiodarone
Sudden Death
Intravenous Administration
Stroke Volume
Electric Stimulation
Echocardiography
Coronary Vessels
Electrocardiography
Logistic Models
Prospective Studies
Exercise

Keywords

  • Metoprolol
  • Sotalol
  • Ventricular tachycardia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Metoprolol versus sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia. / Antz, Matthias; Cappato, Riccardo; Kuck, Karl Heinz.

In: Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1995, p. 627-635.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e00fcdb1bec343d79da4ee1dfa2f9cf3,
title = "Metoprolol versus sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia",
abstract = "The efficacy of sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias has been proved; however, whether its antiarrhythmic effect is due to a β-blocking activity, a class III antiarrhythmic activity, or a combination of both is not known. We conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the effects of metoprolol, a {"}pure{"} β-blocking agent, and of sotalol, a β-blocking agent with additional class III antiarrhythmic properties, in 34 consecutive patients with documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) unrelated to transient causes. After undergoing baseline programmed electrical stimulation (PES-1) to assess arrhythmia inducibility, the patients were randomly assigned to a (double-blind) treatment of either metoprolol (16 patients) or sotalol (18 patients). Before the chronic regimen was initiated, arrhythmia inducibility was reassessed after the intravenous administration of either 0.15 mg/kg metoprolol or 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (PES-2), according to drug assignment. During the chronic oral regimen, a third PES (PES-3) was performed after a median follow-up of 72 days. Resting and exercise ECG, Holter monitoring and echocardiography were performed at baseline and during follow-up. During a 2-year follow-up, a nonfatal arrhythmia recurred in 1 patient of the metoprolol arm and in 5 patients of the sotalol arm; 1 patient in the latter group died suddenly 2 months after the recurrence, while receiving amiodarone therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence, sudden death, or total mortality between the two groups. During PES-1, a sustained ventricular arrhythmia was inducible in 18 of 34 patients (53{\%}), 8 in the metoprolol and 10 in the sotalol arm. As compared with oral metoprolol, oral sotalol significantly reduced arrhythmia inducibility, but this finding did not correlate with clinical outcome. Neither drug proved superior in preventing the recurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia or spontaneous or induced ischemic events. Logistic regression showed that gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the number of stenotic coronary arteries, and the occurrence of ischemic events did not predict the outcome. Results suggest that metoprolol is as efficacious as sotalol in the treatment of stable monomorphic VT. Whether the treatment of such patients with a pure p-blocking agent, with a class III antiarrhythmic agent, or with a drug combining both properties may more relevantly affect the clinical outcome in these patients remains to be investigated.",
keywords = "Metoprolol, Sotalol, Ventricular tachycardia",
author = "Matthias Antz and Riccardo Cappato and Kuck, {Karl Heinz}",
year = "1995",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "627--635",
journal = "Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology",
issn = "0160-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Metoprolol versus sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia

AU - Antz, Matthias

AU - Cappato, Riccardo

AU - Kuck, Karl Heinz

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - The efficacy of sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias has been proved; however, whether its antiarrhythmic effect is due to a β-blocking activity, a class III antiarrhythmic activity, or a combination of both is not known. We conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the effects of metoprolol, a "pure" β-blocking agent, and of sotalol, a β-blocking agent with additional class III antiarrhythmic properties, in 34 consecutive patients with documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) unrelated to transient causes. After undergoing baseline programmed electrical stimulation (PES-1) to assess arrhythmia inducibility, the patients were randomly assigned to a (double-blind) treatment of either metoprolol (16 patients) or sotalol (18 patients). Before the chronic regimen was initiated, arrhythmia inducibility was reassessed after the intravenous administration of either 0.15 mg/kg metoprolol or 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (PES-2), according to drug assignment. During the chronic oral regimen, a third PES (PES-3) was performed after a median follow-up of 72 days. Resting and exercise ECG, Holter monitoring and echocardiography were performed at baseline and during follow-up. During a 2-year follow-up, a nonfatal arrhythmia recurred in 1 patient of the metoprolol arm and in 5 patients of the sotalol arm; 1 patient in the latter group died suddenly 2 months after the recurrence, while receiving amiodarone therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence, sudden death, or total mortality between the two groups. During PES-1, a sustained ventricular arrhythmia was inducible in 18 of 34 patients (53%), 8 in the metoprolol and 10 in the sotalol arm. As compared with oral metoprolol, oral sotalol significantly reduced arrhythmia inducibility, but this finding did not correlate with clinical outcome. Neither drug proved superior in preventing the recurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia or spontaneous or induced ischemic events. Logistic regression showed that gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the number of stenotic coronary arteries, and the occurrence of ischemic events did not predict the outcome. Results suggest that metoprolol is as efficacious as sotalol in the treatment of stable monomorphic VT. Whether the treatment of such patients with a pure p-blocking agent, with a class III antiarrhythmic agent, or with a drug combining both properties may more relevantly affect the clinical outcome in these patients remains to be investigated.

AB - The efficacy of sotalol in the treatment of sustained ventricular arrhythmias has been proved; however, whether its antiarrhythmic effect is due to a β-blocking activity, a class III antiarrhythmic activity, or a combination of both is not known. We conducted a prospective randomized study to compare the effects of metoprolol, a "pure" β-blocking agent, and of sotalol, a β-blocking agent with additional class III antiarrhythmic properties, in 34 consecutive patients with documented sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) unrelated to transient causes. After undergoing baseline programmed electrical stimulation (PES-1) to assess arrhythmia inducibility, the patients were randomly assigned to a (double-blind) treatment of either metoprolol (16 patients) or sotalol (18 patients). Before the chronic regimen was initiated, arrhythmia inducibility was reassessed after the intravenous administration of either 0.15 mg/kg metoprolol or 1.5 mg/kg sotalol (PES-2), according to drug assignment. During the chronic oral regimen, a third PES (PES-3) was performed after a median follow-up of 72 days. Resting and exercise ECG, Holter monitoring and echocardiography were performed at baseline and during follow-up. During a 2-year follow-up, a nonfatal arrhythmia recurred in 1 patient of the metoprolol arm and in 5 patients of the sotalol arm; 1 patient in the latter group died suddenly 2 months after the recurrence, while receiving amiodarone therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence, sudden death, or total mortality between the two groups. During PES-1, a sustained ventricular arrhythmia was inducible in 18 of 34 patients (53%), 8 in the metoprolol and 10 in the sotalol arm. As compared with oral metoprolol, oral sotalol significantly reduced arrhythmia inducibility, but this finding did not correlate with clinical outcome. Neither drug proved superior in preventing the recurrence of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmia or spontaneous or induced ischemic events. Logistic regression showed that gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the number of stenotic coronary arteries, and the occurrence of ischemic events did not predict the outcome. Results suggest that metoprolol is as efficacious as sotalol in the treatment of stable monomorphic VT. Whether the treatment of such patients with a pure p-blocking agent, with a class III antiarrhythmic agent, or with a drug combining both properties may more relevantly affect the clinical outcome in these patients remains to be investigated.

KW - Metoprolol

KW - Sotalol

KW - Ventricular tachycardia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029114943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029114943&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 627

EP - 635

JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology

JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology

SN - 0160-2446

IS - 4

ER -