Long QT syndrome is known to cause life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and is one of the most common causes of sudden cardiac death in children. Reference Skinner, Crawford and Smith1,Reference Tester, Medeiros-Domingo, Will, Haglund and Ackerman2 The acute treatment of ventricular arrhythmias follows the paediatric advanced life support guideline. Treatment options specifically in patients with long QT syndrome and torsade-de-points are administration of intravenous magnesium and infusion with isoproterenol. Reference Suarez, Mack, Hardegree, Chiles, Banchs and Gonzalez3 Ultimate option in therapy refractory cases is left-sided cardiac sympathetic denervation.
Mexiletine is a drug known to shorten the QT interval by blocking sodium channels. In patients with long QT type 3 syndrome it is used in combination with a beta-blocker and successfully reduces cardiac events. Reference Mazzanti, Maragna and Faragli4 However, shortening of QT interval during an mexiletine infusion test is not only seen in patients with long QT type 3 but also in patients with long QT type 1 and 2. Reference Funasako, Aiba and Ishibashi5 A recently published retrospective chart review of 12 patients with long QT type 2 also showed mexiletine to effectively shorten the QT interval in these patients as well. Reference Bos, Crotti and Rohatgi6
Here, we present a case report where mexiletine was successfully used to treat an electrical storm in a 10-year-old boy with long QT 2.
Case report
At 31 weeks of gestation, a woman was referred for a foetal echocardiography due to irregular heartbeat of the fetus. M-mode showed ventricular tachycardia, and the woman was started on digoxin i.v.. After 2 days without improvement, the foetal scan showed AV-valve regurgitation and incipient foetal hydrops. Medication was switched to flecainide, but shortly after that a C-section was necessary due to progressive heart failure of the fetus. A 2.06 kg boy was born, intubated, and received surfactant due to prematurity. On the basis of a 2:1 av block, he was bradycardic at around 60–70 bpm and the corrected QT interval was 590 ms. Echocardiography showed a structurally and functionally normal heart. Except for two episodes of non-sustained torsade-de-point, the boy was hemodynamically stable and could be extubated. As for treatment of the av block and the long QT interval, an epicardial pacemaker (SJM Microny II SR plus VVI, rate 120 bpm) with an epigastric device was implanted and propranolol (3 mg/kg/day) was started. After almost 6 weeks in the hospital (mainly due to prematurity), the boy was discharged.
In the following years, the boy was seen regularly in our outpatient clinic. There were no syncopes, no cardiac events or pacemaker problems documented. During these years, he was on propranolol (2–3 mg/kg/day) and regularly acquired 24-hour electrocardiograms never showed ventricular arrhythmias. Genetics later confirmed mutation p.G628S in gene KCNH2, a pathogenic variant confirming long QT syndrome type 2.
In March 2019, the same boy, now 10 years old, collapsed on a chair in school after a short period of feeling unwell. There were no obvious triggers such as QT-prolonging drugs, infection, or others. According to his parents, he was very compliant in taking his medication. His teacher performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The first rhythm seen when paramedics arrived 15 minutes later was interpreted as ventricular fibrillation and a shock (about 3 J/kg) as well as adrenalin was administered. After that, pulseless electric activity was seen and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was continued. After 45 minutes, return of spontaneous circulation with sinus rhythm was documented. On arrival in the trauma unit the boy was intubated, cardiopulmonary stable without inotropic support and in sinus rhythm at around 95 bpm (pacemaker set at a backup rate of 90 bpm). Read-out of the pacemaker showed ventricular fibrillation at the time of syncope, lasting for about 20 minutes. Subsequently, it exhibited sinus rhythm. Unfortunately, the exact mechanism leading to tachycardia could not be determined in the read-out due to the pacemaker settings. The prior medication with propranolol was continued at a higher dose of 4 mg/kg/day, potassium and magnesium were substituted, and the VVI-pacemaker was set at a rate of 100 bpm (before 90 bpm). In the following 24 hours, the boy repeatedly had non-sustained and sustained ventricular fibrillation as well as torsade-de-pointes, which did not respond to magnesium and required three resuscitations and several defibrillations. Hence, propranolol was stopped and isoproterenol was commenced and titrated up to 0.12 ug/kg/minute resulting in sinus tachycardia at around 110–120 bpm, but without improvement of the ventricular arrhythmias. Therefore, the pacemaker was explanted and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device (Medtronic) set to DDD 100 bpm was implanted. The procedure was successfully conducted. In the next days, there were repeated episodes of torsade-de-pointes and ventricular fibrillation that were adequately terminated by the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Propranolol was restarted (4 mg/kg/day) and the ICD paced at 110 bpm. As a last option before sympathetic denervation was considered, mexiletine (8.6 mg/kg/day) was commenced. The corrected QT interval at baseline was between 554 and 570 ms and with mexiletine reduced to 534–540 ms. Under this dual therapy, no more arrhythmias were documented.
Consecutively, the boy recovered slowly from the hypoxic brain injury he suffered during resuscitation and left the hospital for neurodevelopmental rehabilitation after 6 weeks. When visiting outpatient clinic 6 month later, the boy walked with a moderate ataxia, was able to talk, and also was attending a school for students with extra needs. In the following 2 years of check-ups, there have been no adverse cardiac events under propranolol (3–4 mg/kg/day) and mexiletine (8.3–8.6 mg/kg/day). Mexiletine has been well-tolerated without side effects.
Discussion
Treatment of patients with life-threatening electrical storm due to long QT type 2 is a challenge, and the treatment options are limited (over-pacing, intravenous isoproterenol infusion, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, and left-sided cardiac sympathetic denervation).
Mexiletine, according to treatment guideline from 2013, is to be considered as an add-on therapy to beta-blocker medication in some patients with long QT type 3 syndrome. Reference Priori, Wilde and Horie7 Recently, new promising results have showed mexiletine to successfully shorten QT intervals in patients with long QT type 2 Reference Funasako, Aiba and Ishibashi5,Reference Bos, Crotti and Rohatgi6 as well, even if sample sizes were rather small. These results provided motivation for mexiletine treatment in combination with a beta-blocker to treat the electrical storm of the boy with long QT type 2, before proceeding with left-sided cardiac sympathetic denervation. Hence, the success in the here presented case report suggests mexiletine to not only be an option in the prevention of ventricular tachycardia but also in the acute treatment of an electrical storm.
Conclusion
Recent studies show mexiletine to be a promising option in long-term treatment of certain patients with long QT syndrome type 2. Our case study shows evidence that it might as well play an important role in acute management of electrical storm in these patients.
Acknowledgements
None.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of interest
None.