{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04241948153967007, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029850746268656716, 'mean_word_length': 5.095693779904306, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Propafenone versus disopyramide for treatment of chronic symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias. A multicenter study.

The efficacy and safety of propafenone, 150 mg four times daily, were compared with those of disopyramide, 100 mg four times daily, in a randomized single-blind, cross-over study in 38 patients with symptomatic premature ventricular complexes (PVCs). The 24-hour ambulatory ECG, employed for assessing antiarrhythmic efficacy, was analyzed blindly. The median reduction in the number of PVCs was higher with propafenone than with disopyramide (91.4% vs. 63.5%, respectively, p less than 0.01). A reduction of at least 80% was achieved by propafenone in 22 (59%) and by disopyramide in 16 patients (43%) (NS). Ventricular tachycardias (VTs) were abolished by propafenone in eight out of 11, and by disopyramide in five out of nine patients with VTs (NS) a possible proarrhythmic effect was seen in three patients during disopyramide and in one patient during propafenone treatment. Micturition disturbances (p less than 0.001) and a dry mouth (p less than 0.01) were more commonly associated with disopyramide than with propafenone. In conclusion, in the given dosages, propafenone was superior to disopyramide in suppressing PVCs and had fewer side-effects.