Copyright © 2005, European Society of Cardiology
Do we need new antiarrhythmic compounds in the era of implantable cardiac devices and percutaneous ablation?
Department of Pharmacology, Medical Faculty, University of Technology Dresden, Dresden, Germany
* Corresponding author. Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany. Tel.: +49 3514586300; fax: +49 3514586315. Email address: ravens@rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de
Received 15 August 2005; accepted 22 September 2005
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
The past two decades have witnessed a major breakthrough in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. Owing to technical perfection of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), antitachycardic pacing (ATP), and radiofrequency catheter ablation, today's treatment of cardiac arrhythmias has reached an unprecedented level of efficacy and safety. At the same time, the use of antiarrhythmic drugs has declined because of their low efficacy and proarrhythmic potential.
Do we actually need new antiarrhythmic compounds in the era of ICDs and percutaneous ablation? If the answer is yes, many additional questions come up: Which pharmacological targets should be modified? Are we merely looking for greater efficacy and safety in conventional antiarrhythmic principles [1] or do we need conceptually new approaches? Clearly, the therapeutic goals and the methods by which they are achieved differ in ventricular and in atrial tachyarrhythmias (Fig. 1).
| |||||||||||
 |
1. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias |
|---|
|
2. Atrial tachyarrhythmias |
|---|
|
3. Concepts for new drugs against VT/VF |
|---|
|
4. Concepts for new drugs against AF |
|---|
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?