What is the time course of reversal of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy? Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I read with great interest the case report by Han et al. describing the rapid time course (<24 h) of reversal of a patient with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy following an atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.1 I wish to highlight the observation that the time course of reversal of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy can be highly variable and unpredictable and can vary from 1 day to several months (and even up to a year). The time course of left ventricular (LV) function improvement is typically seen within days to weeks and maximal improvement in LV function is usually noted within 3–6 months with little improvement after that.2 However, we have previously reported a series of six patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy who had ‘late’ improvement (after 6 months) in LV systolic function after rate control of the underlying causative tachycardia.3 Four patients had ‘suboptimal’ rate control (by AFFIRM trial criteria4) of the causative tachycardia (two patients had AF and two patients had atrial tachycardia) and two patients had severe systolic dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)<20%] at diagnosis. We concluded that ‘lenient’ rate control of the tachycardia may result in a slower rate of improvement in LV function and that LV function recovery may be incomplete. Furthermore, patients with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF<20%) at initial diagnosis may have a slower rate of improvement even with effective rate or rhythm control of the causative tachycardia. These observations have implications for the practising clinician and highlight the need to perform serial measurements of LV function beyond the usual short-to-medium time period (>6 months) to assess maximal LV function improvement. Recently, another patient with a tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy (LVEF 33%) secondary to poorly controlled AF, had a permanent pacemaker implantation and AV node ablation for rate control. He had minimal improvement in LV function at 6 months (LVEF 35%). He continued to have improvement after 6 months and was documented to have a LVEF 52% at a 1-year follow-up study. All LVEF measurements were obtained by radionuclide angiography during ventricular pacing. The factors that determine the rate of improvement of LV function remains undefined. Although unproven, it appears that a combination of genetic (currently unknown) or patient-related factors (pre-existing structural heart disease, gender) and tachycardia-related factors (type, rate, duration of tachycardia) pre-dispose to and determine the rate of development of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. It is possible that the same factors are responsible for determining the rate of improvement of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Other factors that may play a role include the degree of rate control of the tachycardia and the initial severity of LV dysfunction at presentation. Conflict of interest: none declared.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".