Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 1980;62:20-28

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scheinman, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Abbott, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Scheinman, M. M.
Right arrow Articles by Abbott, J. A.

Circulation, Vol 62, 20-28, Copyright © 1980 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

Effects of antiarrhythmic drugs on atrioventricular conduction in patients with acute myocardial infarction

MM Scheinman, P Remedios, MD Cheitlin, RW Peters, N Holford, J Desai and JA Abbott

Three hundred fifty-eight of 429 (83%) consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and a normal PR interval received various antiarrhythmic drugs (AD), including lidocaine and/or procainamide, quinidine, digoxin, propranolol or disopyramide. There was no significant difference in the incidence of progression to any degree of atrioventricular (AV) block or to higher degrees of AV block (Mobitz II or third-degree AV block) between those treated and not treated with AD: 38 of 358 (11%) and six of 358 (1.7%) with AD vs 11 of 71 (15%) and two of 71 (2.8%) in the untreated group, respectively. Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression between treated and untreated patients with anterior MI, 14 of 144 (10%) vs five of 32 (16%); inferior MI, 21 of 111 (19%) vs five of 26 (19%), or subendocardial MI, three of 103 (3%) vs one of 12 (8%). Bundle branch block (BBB) (without AV block) was initially present in 89 of 249 (21%). The incidence of AV block (seven of 24, 30%) was higher in treated patients with newly acquired BBB (27 patients) than in the untreated patients (none of three, p less than 0.05). The commonly used ADs did not adversely affect AV conduction in patients with acute MI with narrow QRS and either normal, first-degree, or Mobitz I AV block. Moreover, no subset of patients grouped by infarct location, specific AD used, or BBB (except perhaps for those with newly acquired BBB) appeared to be at risk of development of AV block during AD therapy.