Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in a Patient with Ventricular Fibrillation due to Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present here the case of a 43-year-old female without any known past medical history who was brought into the emergency department (ED) by the emergency medical services (EMS) after receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the field. Per EMS, on arrival patient was found to be on ventricular fibrillation and was shocked 3 times. Patient had no past medical history. In the ED, EKG showed sinus rhythm and troponin was 23 which is slightly high compared to upper limit. Patient was taken to the cath lab immediately which showed small to medium caliber septal 1 branch severe mid segment disease with distal tapering suggestive of spontaneous coronary artery dissection. No stent was placed. Electrophysiology was consulted and an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator was placed. Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a phenomenon where an epicardial coronary artery dissection occurs that is not related to atherosclerosis, trauma or iatrogenia. Patients with SCAD presenting with ventricular arrhythmias are not very common. In a Canadian registry analyzing 1056 patients with SCAD, only 84 of them presented with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) and only 8 underwent ICD placement. They followed up the patients for 5 years and 8 patients suffered VT/VF. 5 of those 8 patients had VT/VF on initial SCAD presentation, and only 1 of them had undergone ICD insertion. There are no specific guidelines regarding ICD placement on patients with coronary artery dissection, but the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines can help us make decisions. Our case underscores the importance of more prospective or retrospective studies to identify those patients with SCAD who would benefit from ICD placement for secondary prevention. The current guidelines for ventricular arrhythmias are an excellent tool for the electrophysiologist regarding the management of these arrhythmias in other specific scenarios but guidance on SCAD is still lacking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".