A Reappraisal on Lidocaine‐Sensitive Repetitive, Uniform Atrial Tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lidocaine sensitive, repetitive atrial tachycardia is an unusual arrhythmia whose electrophysiologic substrate remains undefined. We aimed to analyze the electropharmacologic characteristics of this arrhythmia with emphasis on its cellular substrate and response to drug challenges. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a series of 18 patients from an electrocardiographic and electrophysiologic perspective and the response to pharmacological challenge. RESULTS: There was no evidence of structural heart disease in 12 patients, 4 patients presented with systemic hypertension; one patient had a prior myocardial infarction and one a mitral valve prolapse. The arrhythmia depicted a consistent pattern in nine patients. The first initiating ectopic beat showed a long coupling interval, the cycle length of the second atrial ectopic beat presented the shortest cycle length and a further prolongation was apparent towards the end of the atrial salvos. Conversely, in the other nine cases, the atrial tachycardia cycle length was erratic. The arrhythmia was suppressed by asynchronous atrial pacing at cycle lengths longer than those of the atrial tachycardia. Intravenous lidocaine eliminated the arrhythmia in all patients, but intravenous verapamil suppressed the atrial tachycardia in only two patients while adenosine caused a transient disappearance in 2/8 patients. Only one patient responded to all the three agents. Radiofrequency ablation was successfully performed in 10 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive uniform atrial tachycardia can be sensitive to lidocaine. In few cases, this rare focal arrhythmia may be also suppressed by adenosine and/or verapamil, which suggests a diversity of electrophysiologic substrates that deserve to be accurately identified.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".