Short-coupled ventricular fibrillation represents a distinct phenotype among latent causes of unexplained cardiac arrest: a report from the CASPER registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The term idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) describes survivors of unexplained cardiac arrest (UCA) without a specific diagnosis after clinical and genetic testing. Previous reports have described a subset of IVF individuals with ventricular arrhythmia initiated by short-coupled trigger premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) for which the term short-coupled ventricular fibrillation (SCVF) has been proposed. The aim of this article is to establish the phenotype and frequency of SCVF in a large cohort of UCA survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicentre study including consecutive UCA survivors from the CASPER registry. Short-coupled ventricular fibrillation was defined as otherwise unexplained ventricular fibrillation initiated by a trigger PVC with a coupling interval of <350 ms. Among 364 UCA survivors, 24/364 (6.6%) met diagnostic criteria for SCVF. The diagnosis of SCVF was obtained in 19/24 (79%) individuals by documented ventricular fibrillation during follow-up. Ventricular arrhythmia was initiated by a mean PVC coupling interval of 274 ± 32 ms. Electrical storm occurred in 21% of SCVF probands but not in any UCA proband (P < 0.001). The median time to recurrent ventricular arrhythmia in SCVF was 31 months. Recurrent ventricular fibrillation resulted in quinidine administration in 12/24 SCVF (50%) with excellent arrhythmia control. CONCLUSION: Short-coupled ventricular fibrillation is a distinct primary arrhythmia syndrome accounting for at least 6.6% of UCA. As documentation of ventricular fibrillation onset is necessary for the diagnosis, most cases are diagnosed at the time of recurrent arrhythmia, thus the true prevalence of SCVF remains still unknown. Quinidine is effective in SCVF and should be considered as first-line treatment for patients with recurrent episodes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".