Purkinje triggers of ventricular fibrillation in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is the main mechanism of sudden cardiac death in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The origin of VF and the success of catheter ablation to eliminate recurrent episodes in this population are poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2010 to 2014, five patients with HCM (age 21 ± 9 years, three female) underwent invasive electrophysiological studies and ablation at our center after resuscitation from recurrent (9 ± 7) episodes of VF. Ventricular premature beats (VPBs), seen to initiate VF in certain cases, were recorded noninvasively before the ablation procedure. Postprocedural computed tomography (CT) was performed to correlate ablation sites with myocardial hypertrophy in three patients. Outcomes were assessed by clinical follow-up and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interrogations. VPB triggers were localized invasively to the distal left Purkinje conduction system (left posterior fascicle [2], left anterior fascicle [1], and both fascicles [2]). All targeted VF triggers were successfully eliminated by radiofrequency ablation in the left ventricle. Among patients with postablation CT imaging, 93 ± 12% of ablation sites corresponded to hypertrophied segments. Over 50 ± 38 months, four of five patients were free from primary VF without antiarrhythmic drug therapy. One patient who had 13 episodes of VF before ablation had a single recurrence. CONCLUSION: In our study of patients with HCM and recurrent VF, VF was not initiated from the myocardium but rather from Purkinje arborization. These sources colocalized with the hypertrophic substrate, suggesting electromechanical interaction. Focal ablation at these sites was associated with a marked reduction in VF burden.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".