Skip to main content
Log in

Aktueller Stellenwert von Amiodaron in der antiarrhythmischen Therapie

Current role of amiodarone in antiarrhythmic therapy

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Herzschrittmachertherapie + Elektrophysiologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Amiodaron gilt Jahrzehnte nach seiner Zulassung als das wirksamste Medikament zur Behandlung von tachykarden Herzrhythmusstörungen. Amiodaron wird den Klasse-III-Antiarrhythmika zugerechnet. Seine antiarrhythmische Effektivität hat mehrere Ursachen. Es verlängert nicht nur die kardiale Repolarisation, sondern blockiert die Natrium- und Kalziumkanäle. Hinzu kommen eine unselektive β-Blockade, eine hohe Lipophilität und eine extrem lange Halbwertszeit. Bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern ist Amiodaron das am besten wirksame Antiarrhythmikum zur Erhaltung eines Sinusrhythmus. Amiodaron unterdrückt ventrikuläre Arrhythmien, z. B. häufige ventrikuläre Extrasystolen oder nicht anhaltende kurze Salven von ventrikulären Tachykardien, v. a. aber unterdrückt es Kammertachykardien und Kammerflimmern. Bei Patienten mit erhöhtem Risiko für den plötzlichen Herztod, z. B. bei hochgradig eingeschränkter linksventrikulärer Pumpfunktion, ist Amiodaron ein hocheffektives und gleichzeitig sicheres Antiarrhythmikum. Bei diesen Patienten kann eine Therapie mit Amiodaron das Auftreten von appropriaten und inappropriaten ICD-Schocks verhindern. Amiodaron zeigt v. a. bei einer Dauertherapie typische Nebenwirkungen wie Korneaablagerungen, Verfärbungen der Haut, Fotosensitivität, Hypo- und Hyperthyreose, periphere Neuropathie, Optikusneuritis sowie Erhöhungen der Leberwerte. Nach dem Absetzen von Amiodaron sind diese in der Regel reversibel. Irreversible, schwere Nebenwirkungen wie Lungenschädigungen treten unter der heute üblichen Erhaltungsdosis von 200 mg pro Tag sehr selten auf. Im Hinblick auf die Nebenwirkungen sollten regelmäßige Kontrolluntersuchungen von Laborwerten, Lungenfunktion und Sehfähigkeit durchgeführt werden.

Abstract

Decades after its registration, amiodarone is still regarded as the most effective antiarrhythmic drug available for the treatment of tachyarrhythmias. Amiodarone is classified as a class III antiarrhythmic drug. In addition to the prolongation of cardiac repolarization, its leading pharmacologic features are sodium and calcium channel block, nonselective β-adrenergic inhibition as well as high lipophilicity and a very long plasma half-life. In patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, amiodarone is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug in maintaining sinus rhythm. Furthermore, it prevents ventricular arrhythmias, such as frequent ventricular extrasystoles or nonsustained runs of ventricular tachycardia, as well as sustained ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. In patients with increased risk for sudden cardiac death, e.g., with severely depressed left ventricular function, amiodarone is a highly effective and safe antiarrhythmic drug. In addition, amiodarone has been shown to reduce the number of appropriate and inappropriate shocks in patients with an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator. During long-term amiodarone treatment, typical side effects including corneal microdeposits, blue–gray skin discoloration, photosensitivity, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, peripheral neuropathy, optical neuritis and hepatotoxicity accrue. Upon cessation of medication, these are almost always reversible. Irreversible, severe adverse effects, such as pulmonary toxicity, are very rare under the currently used maintenance dose of 200 mg/day. With regard to its side effect profile, an adequate follow-up of patients including laboratory values, lung function tests, and visual acuity is necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB et al (2005) Amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 352:225–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Basaria S, Cooper DS (2005) Amiodarone and the thyroid. Am J Med 118:706–714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. CASCADE Investigators (1991) Cardiac arrest in Seattle: conventional versus amiodarone drug evaluation. Am J Cardiol 67:578–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. CAST Investigators The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (1989) Effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in infarction. N Engl J Med 321:406–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Connolly SJ (1999) Evidence-based analysis of amiodarone efficacy and safety. Circulation 100:2025–2034

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dorian P, Cass D, Cooper R et al (2002) Amiodarone as compared with lidocaine for shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation. N Engl J Med 346:884–890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. EMIAT Investigators, Camm AJ, Julian D, Janse G et al (1993) The European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT). Am J Cardiol 72(16):95F–98F

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hohnloser SH, Klingenheben T, Singh BN (1994) Amiodarone-associated proarrhythmic effects. A review with special reference to torsade de pointes tachycardia. Ann Intern Med 121(7):529–535

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kamath GS, Mittal S (2008) The role of antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 50:439–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kies P, Boersma E, Bax JJ et al (2005) Determinants of recurrent ventricular arrhythmia or death in 300 consecutive patients with ischemic heart disease who experienced aborted sudden death: data from the Leiden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 16:1049–1056

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kudenchuk PJ, Cobb LA, Copass MK (1999) Amiodarone for resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. N Engl J Med 341:871–878

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Le Heuzey JY, De Ferrari GM, Radzik D et al (2010) A short-term, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: the DIONYSOS study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 21:597–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Man KC, Williamson BD, Niebauer M et al (1994) Electrophysiologic effects of sotalol and amiodarone in patients with sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. Am J Cardiol 74:1119–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. OPTIC Investigators. Connolly SJ, Dorian P, Roberts RS et al (2006) Comparison of beta-blockers, amiodarone plus beta-blockers, or sotalol for prevention of shocks from implantable cardioverter defibrillators: the OPTIC Study: a randomized trial. JAMA 295:165–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ott MC, Khoor A, Leventhal JP et al (2003) Pulmonary toxicity in patients receiving low-dose amiodarone. Chest 123(2):646–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Roy D, Talajic M, Dorian P et al (2000) Amiodarone to prevent recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. N Engl J Med 342:913–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh BN, Singh SN, Reda DJ et al (2005) Amiodarone versus sotalol for atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 352:1861–1872

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh SN, Fletcher RD, Fisher SG et al (1995) Amiodarone in patients with congestive heart failure and asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmia. Survival Trial of Antiarrhythmic Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure. N Engl J Med 333:77–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Erven L, Schalij MJ (2010) Amiodarone: an effective antiarrhythmic drug with unusual side effects. Heart 96:1593–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. van Gelder ICD, Hagens VE, Bosker HA et al (2002) A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 347:1834–1840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vassallo P, Trohman RG (2007) Prescribing amiodarone: an evidence-based review of clinical indications. JAMA 298:1312–1322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vorperian VR, Havighurst TC, Miller S, January CT (1997) Adverse effects of low dose amiodarone: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 30:791–798

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yalta K, Turgut O, Yilmaz M et al (2009) Dronedarone: a promising alternative for the management of atrial fibrillation. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 23:385–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ypenburg C, Erven L van, Bleeker GB et al (2006) Benefit of combined resynchronization and defibrillator therapy in heart failure patients with and without ventricular arrhythmias. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:464–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Zabel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sohns, C., Zabel, M. Aktueller Stellenwert von Amiodaron in der antiarrhythmischen Therapie. Herzschr. Elektrophys. 21, 239–243 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00399-010-0091-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00399-010-0091-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation