The Retrograde P‐Wave Theory: Explaining ST Segment Depression in Supraventricular Tachycardia by Retrograde AV Node Conduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pseudo ischemic ST segment changes during supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) are not yet fully understood. Our aim was to determine whether venticulo-atrial (VA) conduction during SVT may be a possible mechanism for ST depression (STd) in SVT. METHODS: Patients undergoing SVT ablation (2010-2012) were analyzed (n = 72).Typical atrioventricular node reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) were included. Those with STd were compared to those without STd. VA interval length, tachycardia cycle length (TCL), and retrograde P-wave activation during SVT were assessed. Retrograde P waves arriving simultaneously with the ST segment (PWST) during SVT were considered, whenever an atrial electrogram (measured from the high right atrium) was "on time" with the ST segment. RESULTS: Patients with STd during SVT presented longer VA intervals than those without STd (VA 100 ± 37 ms vs VA 69 ± 22 ms; P = 0.006). No differences in TCL were observed (TCL 333 ± 35 ms vs TCL 360 ± 22 ms; P = 0.1). PWST was observed in 38.5% of patients with AVNRT and STd versus 0% in those without STd. The TCL was similar in both groups (355 ± 25 ms vs 334 ± 18 ms; P = 0.1). In patients with AVRT and STd, PWST was present in 81% of cases versus 0% in those without STd. The TCL was also similar (330 ± 29 ms vs 346 ± 17 ms; P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: STd during SVT is observed at long VA intervals when the retrograde P wave matches the ST segment, without dependence on the TCL. This suggests that STd is not necessarily rate dependent but a result of a fusion between the ST segment and the P wave.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".