[Therapy of XXXX refractory to @entity3303 with @entity2779 (author's transl)].

@entity1 @entity2779 @entity296 @entity1165 @entity591 @entity3303 @entity1370
@entity3303 is most widely used for suppression of recurrent @entity1165 by IV application. Advantages are good control and low incidence of signs of @entity1370 . Most important disadvantage is lack of possibility to continue therapy by oral administration. A serious problem is a high rate of non-responders, between 15 and 50% according to the literature. In our @entity1 , rate of non-responders is about 25%. In these patients, other antiarrhythmic agents can be used, but therapeutic success is even more uncertain because of a higher rate of non-responders and adverse reactions in most instances. We administered @entity2779 as drug of second choice in 30 @entity1 with @entity1165 refractory to @entity3303 . Initial bolus injection of 1-2 mg/kg body weight followed by drip infusion (0,2-0,5 mg/kg body weight/hr) or oral administration in those @entity1 who responded to the initial bolus injection (83%). This regimen allowed sufficient control of the @entity591 in all @entity1 of the responder group. Serious adverse reactions of cardiac origin were fall of blood pressure and exorbitant widening of QRS-complexes in three @entity1 . A demonstration of a @entity1 dying from pump failure with extremely widened QRS-complexes is given. Therefore we ask for caution regarding administration of @entity2779 in @entity1 with serious diffuse @entity296 . @entity2779 therefore seems to be well suited for therapy of @entity1165 refractory to @entity3303 because of its low rate of non-responders and the possibility to continue treatment of oral administration of the drug.
