Left Ventricular Remodeling and Ventricular Arrhythmias After Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relation between left ventricular (LV) remodeling and ventricular arrhythmias after myocardial infarction is poorly documented. We investigated the relations between LV size, hypertrophy, and function and ventricular arrhythmias in 263 patients from the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study, using quantitative 2D echocardiography and ambulatory ECG monitoring after myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Transthoracic 2D echocardiograms and arrhythmia monitoring were performed at baseline (mean, 11 days) and 1 and 2 years after infarction. LV size, short-axis muscle (mass) area (LVMA), and function were quantified from 2D echocardiograms. The prevalence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and frequent ventricular ectopy (premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] >10/h) was assessed from ambulatory ECG. VT and PVCs >10/h occurred in 20% and 29% of patients at baseline, in 22% and 35% at 1 year and 23% and 39% at 2 years, respectively. VT and PVCs >10/h at baseline and 1 and 2 years were significantly related to LV size, LVMA, and function. Furthermore, changes in LV size and function from baseline to 2 years predicted both VT and PVCs >10/h. The study was underpowered to detect treatment effect of ACE inhibitors and beta-adrenergic receptor blockers but did not alter the relations between ventricular arrhythmias, LV size, and function. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative echocardiographic assessment of LV size, LVMA, and function and changes in these measurements over time predict ventricular arrhythmias after infarction. Altered LV architecture and function during postinfarction LV remodeling provide an important substrate for triggering high-grade ventricular arrhythmias.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".