Efficacy and safety of ajmaline in patients with refractory electrical storm

H. Könemann (Münster)1, A. Camu (Münster)1, A. Büscher (Münster)1, J. Sackarnd (Münster)2, F. Kreimer (Münster)1, F. Güner (Münster)1, B. Rath (Münster)1, G. Frommeyer (Münster)1, C. Ellermann (Münster)1, J. Wolfes (Münster)1, J. Köbe (Münster)1, L. Eckardt (Münster)1
1Universitätsklinikum Münster Klinik für Kardiologie II - Rhythmologie Münster, Deutschland; 2Universitätsklinikum Münster Klinik für Kardiologie I: Koronare Herzkrankheit, Herzinsuffizienz und Angiologie Münster, Deutschland

Background: Antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy is a cornerstone of the complex management of patients with an electrical storm (ES). Data on the safety and efficacy of AADs besides beta-blockers and amiodarone are limited.

Objective: This retrospective observational study aimed at assessing the potential role of ajmaline in patients with ES refractory to guideline-recommended care.

Methods: Adult patients admitted to the ICU at our tertiary centre between March 2013 and December 2023 who received ajmaline for therapy-refractory ES were retrospectively analysed.

Results: 46 out of 332 patients with recurrent VT/VF (mean age 64±11 years; 93% male; mean LVEF 33±12%; n=78% with implanted ICD) were treated with ajmaline due to ES that was refractory to guideline-recommended therapy. All but one patient (98%) had known structural heart disease. (n=29 ischaemic cardiomyopathy, n=16 non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy). Most patients (n=37, 80%) had sustained monomorphic VT whereas recurrent polymorphic VT and ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurred in 5 (11%) patients, in 4 patients (9%) both sustained monomorphic and polymorphic VT or VF occurred. After an initial i.v. bolus (n=16; 35%), ajmaline was administered continuously in nearly all patients (n=45; 98%). Serious adverse events requiring discontinuation of ajmaline therapy were not observed. Minor adverse events occurred in 3 patients (7%). Complete arrhythmia suppression was achieved in 34 patients (74%), partial suppression in 2 (4%), and slowing of VT in 5 (11%). In 5 patients (11%), ajmaline showed no effect. During hospitalization, 5 patients (11%) died; 2 (4%) due to multi-organ failure and 3 (7%) of a combined septic and cardiogenic shock despite complete or partial arrhythmia suppression by ajmaline. 28 patients (61%) underwent an electrophysiologic study aiming at VT ablation, and 41 patients (89%) were discharged in stable rhythm. After a 6-month follow-up, 15 patients were lost to follow-up and 24 of the 26 remaining patients were still alive.

Conclusion: In selected patients with refractory ES, ajmaline treatment was associated with a reduction in VAs and a favourable safety profile. Ajmaline may serve as a valuable bridge to definitive treatment in life-threatening ES.