New drugs vs. old concepts: A fresh look at antiarrhythmics

Common arrhythmias, particularly atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) are a major public health concern. Classic antiarrhythmic (AA) drugs for AF are of limited effectiveness, and pose the risk of life-threatening VT/VF. For VT/VF, implantable cardiac defibrillators appear to be the unique, yet unsatisfactory, solution. Very few AA drugs have been successful in the last few decades, due to safety concerns or limited benefits in comparison to existing therapy. The Vaughan-Williams classification (one drug for one molecular target) appears too restrictive in light of current knowledge of molecular and cellular mechanisms. New AA drugs such as atrial-specific and/or multichannel blockers, upstream therapy and anti-remodeling drugs, are emerging. We focus on the cellular mechanisms related to abnormal Na+ and Ca2+ handling in AF, heart failure, and inherited arrhythmias, and on novel strategies aimed at normalizing ionic homeostasis. Drugs that prevent excessive Na+ entry (ranolazine) and aberrant diastolic Ca2+ release via the ryanodine receptor RyR2 (rycals, dantrolene, and flecainide) exhibit very interesting antiarrhythmic properties. These drugs act by normalizing, rather than blocking, channel activity. Ranolazine preferentially blocks abnormal persistent (vs. normal peak) Na+ currents, with minimal effects on normal channel function (cell excitability, and conduction). A similar “normalization” concept also applies to RyR2 stabilizers, which only prevent aberrant opening and diastolic Ca2+ leakage in diseased tissues, with no effect on normal function during systole. The different mechanisms of action of AA drugs may increase the therapeutic options available for the safe treatment of arrhythmias in a wide variety of pathophysiological situations.