Outcomes of untreated frequent premature ventricular complexes with normal left ventricular function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The natural history of frequent premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) in association with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is uncertain. The optimal management of this population is thus undefined. We studied the outcomes of untreated patients with frequent PVCs and preserved LVEF. METHODS: This cohort study prospectively evaluated consecutive patients from 2012 to 2017, with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic frequent idiopathic PVCs (≥5% PVCs in 24 hours; normal LVEF; no cause identified on comprehensive evaluation). No suppressive therapy (ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs) were used and patients were followed with serial ambulatory ECG monitoring and echocardiography. The primary arrhythmic outcome was reduction in PVC burden to <1% on serial ambulatory monitoring. The primary echocardiographic outcome was a reduction of LVEF to <50%. RESULTS: One hundred patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 51.8 years, 57% female) with a median PVC burden of 18.4%. Reduction to <1% PVCs occurred in 44 of 100 patients (44.0%) at a median of 15.4 months (range 2.6 to 64.3). Recurrence was uncommon (4/44, 9.1%). Four patients (4.3%) with a persistently elevated PVC burden developed left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF <50%) during the follow-up period at a range of 53-71 months. The initial PVC burden did not predict subsequent resolution (HR 1.00(0.97, 1.03); p=0.86). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of active surveillance is appropriate for the majority of patients with frequent idiopathic PVCs in association with preserved LVEF, owing to the low risk of developing left ventricular systolic dysfunction and the high rate of spontaneous resolution.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".