Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9664738

[In Process Citation]

Abstract

Reperfusion arrhythmias originate as a consequence of the complex of cellular and humoral reactions accompanying the opening of coronary artery. As the primary cause of their generation are considered the chemically defined substances that are produced and accumulated in myocardium during reperfusion. The key role id ascribed to free oxygen radicals but of importance are also other substances such as calcium, thrombin, platelet activating factor, inositol triphosphate, angiotensin II and others. These chemical mediators of reperfusion arrhythmias operate as modulators of cellular electrophysiology causing the complex changes at the level of ion channels. It is supposed that in the genesis of reperfusion arrhythmias unlike ischemic arrhythmias operate nonreentrant mechanisms such as abnormal or enhanced automacy and triggered activity due to afterdepolarizations. As a typical reperfusion arrhythmia is considered an early (within 6 hours after start of thrombolysis), frequent (> 30 episodes/hour) and repetitive (occurring during > 3 consecutive hours) accelerated idioventricular rhythm (AIVR). AIVR with such characteristics has a high specificity and positive predictive accuracy but relative low sensitivity as a predictor of reperfusion. Thus, in occurrence of AIVR, recanalization of infarction-related coronary artery is very probable, but in absence of AIVR, reperfusion is still not excluded. The following arrhythmias are regarded also as markers of reperfusion: frequent premature ventricular complexes (> twofold increase in frequency within 90 minutes after the start of thrombolysis), a significant increase of episodes in nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, sinus bradycardia and probably also high degree atrioventricular blocks. At present, there is no definite evidence, as to whether sustained ventricular tachycardia and especially ventricular fibrillation can be caused by reperfusion. Reperfusion arrhythmias are an important noninvasive marker of successful recanalization of infarction-related coronary artery. However, they are also a sign of reperfusion injury and a finding which may limit the favourable effect of reperfusion. In account of that, there is a very intensive search for pharmacologic interventions which could protect or attenuate the reperfusion injury and thereby also the genesis of reperfusion arrhythmias. Although promising results were obtained with many substances antagonizing the effects of mediators of reperfusion injury, there is no definite recomendation for their use under clinical conditions. However, the results from the latest clinical trials with ACE inhibitors are very promising. These trials render relative conclusive evidence, that ACE inhibitors could have a protective effect against reperfusion arrhythmias. (Ref. 89, Tab. 1.)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

O Jurkovicova, S Cagan. 1998. [In Process Citation]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9664738/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗