Ventricular arrhythmias in patients with heart failure secondary to reduced ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with heart failure secondary to reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). RECENT FINDINGS: Recurrent ventricular arrhythmias and automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) shocks are responsible for significant mortality and morbidity in patients with HFrEF. Antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation are the main treatment options. Frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVCs; >10,000-20,000/24-h period) are being recognized as a cause of cardiomyopathy and suboptimal response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs) have frequent ventricular tachyarrhythmias resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Such patients may need continuation of active ICD therapy and adjunctive catheter ablation. SUMMARY: There is a pressing need to develop new antiarrhythmic drugs to treat patients with recurrent AICD shocks. The effectiveness of catheter ablation as first-line therapy for preventing ventricular arrhythmias and recurrent AICD shocks needs to be directly compared with amiodarone. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias are common in CRT patients and patients with VADs. Frequent PVCs may result in a reversible form of HFrEF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".