These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Comparison of the efficacy/tolerability ratio of cibenzoline and propafenone in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmia].
    Author: Babuty D, Cosnay P, Rouesnel P, Bine-Scheck F, Arnaud R, Fauchier JP.
    Journal: Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris); 1992 Apr; 41(4):225-34. PubMed ID: 1642441.
    Abstract:
    Cibenzoline (C) was compared with propafenone (P) in 18 adult patients (7 women and 11 men) aged 50 +/- 7 in double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. After a therapeutic wash-out period corresponding to 5 times the half-life of previous anti-arrhythmic drugs, patients with more than 100 premature ventricular contractions (PVC) per hour in two 24 hour Holter records obtained at an interval of 7 days were treated in succession and after randomised by C (390 mg/day in 3 divided doses) and P (900 mg/day in 3 divided doses) for a period of two weeks, each active sequence being followed by a two week wash-out period. Efficacy (based upon the decrease in PVC/hour in a 24 hour Holter) and tolerability were evaluated at the end of each sequence, with samples drawn at the same times for assay of the study drugs. Three patients dropped out of the trial, 1 with each active drug (for epigastric pain) and 1 with dummy. No significant difference was seen between the two drugs regarding the decrease in the total number of PVC/hour in the 15 patients completing the cross-over protocol. A reduction in PVC/hour of more than 70 per cent was seen in 7 patients with C and in 9 patients with P. C was better tolerated than P on the basis of both clinical and electrocardiographic parameters. One patient developed troublesome adverse reactions with C as compared with 4 patients in the case of P. A more than 20 per cent increase in QRS was seen in 7 patients with C and in 10 patients with P, the figures for PR being 2 and 6 patients respectively. One patient showed a proarrhythmic effect with P. Plasma levels of C were significantly higher in responders (328 +/- 149 ng/ml) than in non-responders (137 +/- 41 ng/ml, p less than 0.05). No significant difference was found concerning plasma levels of P (578 +/- 477 ng/ml compared with 646 +/- 457 ng/ml, p greater than 0.05). In conclusion, the efficacy/tolerability ratio in this population with a low risk of serious rhythm events appeared to be better with C than with P.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]