To characterize quantitatively the quinidine (QUIN)-induced conduction delay (CD) in vivo, canine ventricular activation times were examined with an epicardial mapping technique. A high-resolution index of normalized (N) QUIN CD, derived from all 56 recording sites, was used to quantify QUIN effect. Repetitive stimulation elicited monoexponential increases in CD(N), the rates of which were a linear function of interpulse recovery interval, tr. Steady-state CD(N) was also linearly related to an exponential function of tr and drug uptake rates. The frequency-dependent properties of QUIN in 14 dogs were characterized by apparent binding and unbinding rates of ka = 7.1 +/- 3.5 x 10(6) M-1 s-1, la = 81 +/- 51 s-1 for activated, and kr = 12.6 +/- 11.3 x 10(3) M-1 s-1, lr = 0.51 +/- 0.26 s-1 for resting states. ka and la were similar to values previously derived in canine Purkinje fibers. Drug unbinding at resting potentials was faster in vivo than previously observed in vitro. The time constant of recovery from QUIN block extracted from the interpulse recovery rate was also identical to that determined from post-mature stimulus diastolic scanning. As predicted by the two-state model, similar binding rates were also derived from declining CD(N) elicited by step decreases in heart rate. These findings represent a complete quantitative description of use-dependent QUIN CD in vivo and provide a firm foundation for characterizing antiarrhythmic drug action under physiologic and pathologic conditions.
F N Haugland, S B Johnson, D L Packer
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 102 | 0 |
57 | 10 | |
Scanned page | 650 | 3 |
Citation downloads | 64 | 0 |
Totals | 873 | 13 |
Total Views | 886 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.