prajmaline and Angina-Pectoris

40 patients with various type of arrhytmia with stable angina were treated with 3 x 20mg Prajmalin (Neo-Gilurytmal) over 6-day period. A positive antyarhytmic response was observed in 30 patients (75%). In the remaining 10 patients considering the lack of adequate response after 6 days on 60 mg the trial was continued at a dose of 100 mg/day (5 x 20mg). With this dose bringing on the desired results. In 32 patients with VE'e and SVE's Neo-Gilurytmal was used in mono therapy. While in other types of arthymia it was used as previously as a first treatment and also in cases where other antiarhytmic drugs (e.g. Propahenone, Mexitil or Beta-blockers) were unsuccessful. Antiarhytmic effects were verified using 24-hour Holter monitoring before introduction of Neo-Gilurytmal, during the first fourth and seventh day of administration and also the eleventh day of observation (in 30 patients three days after cessation of treatment and in 10 cases three days after commencing on 100 mg daily). The results, as mean of the 24-hour observation was statistically analysed using the Wilcoxon test. We analysed the mean from the first day (H1), fourth day (H2), seventh day (H3) i.e. 6 days after administration and in 10 patients three day after increasing the dose to 100 mg/day (H4). We compared this to a base value (Ho) obtained before drug administration. The results obtained showed the Neo-Gilurythmal is an effective drug significantly reducing meanly VE's and SVE's and also gigemini, trigemini, coupled, runs. It was concluded that Neo-Gilurythmal did not significantly effect the heart rate and QT intervals and also QT adjusted to the heart rate. It was also noticed that these was a lack of therapeutic effect 3 days after cessation of treatment, which was suggested that constant therapy is required. Neo-Gilurythmal was find to be effective even in the case where other previously used antiarhymics were ineffective. We also observe a positive result in treatment of paroxismal tachycardia, in treatment of WPW Syndrome and also in prophylactic againts its recurrence. In our study no adverse effects (e.g. cardiac muscle depression, hypotensive episodes or noted in other studies gepatotoxicity or cholestatic episodes) were observed.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Angina Pectoris; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Drug Administration Schedule; Electrocardiography, Ambulatory; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prajmaline; Tachycardia, Paroxysmal; Treatment Outcome

Thirty patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation for coronary artery disease received parenteral ajmaline (15 patients) or prajmaline (15 patients). There were no statistically significant induced changes in left ventricular systolic or end diastolic pressures, indirect left atrial pressure, pulmonary artery mean pressure, cardiac output or left ventricular ejection fraction compared to control values. Intravenous prajmaline bitartrate in 15 patients with angina did not significantly alter work capacity, maximum exercise heart rate or systolic blood pressure compared to control values. Five patients developed transient minor conduction defects ( 2LBBB , 1 RBBB, 2 prolonged PR interval): all five were also receiving long-term treatment with beta blockers and nifedipine.

Topics: Adult; Ajmaline; Angina Pectoris; Blood Pressure; Cardiac Catheterization; Cardiac Output; Coronary Disease; Female; Heart Ventricles; Hemodynamics; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Male; Middle Aged; Physical Exertion; Prajmaline