4.4 Article

Relationship between burden of premature ventricular complexes and left ventricular function

期刊

HEART RHYTHM
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 865-869

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.03.036

关键词

Premature ventricular complexes; Ablation; Cardiomyopathy

资金

  1. Leducq Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Frequent idiopathic premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) can result in a reversible form of left ventricular dysfunction. The factors resulting in impaired left ventricular function are unclear. Whether a critical burden of PVCs can result in cardiomyopathy has not been determined. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to determine a cutoff PVC burden that can result in PVC-induced cardiomyopathy. METHODS In a consecutive group of 174 patients referred for ablation of frequent idiopathic PVCs, the PVC burden was determined by 24-hour Holter monitoring, and transthoracic echocardiograms were used to assess left ventricular function. Receiver-operator characteristic curves were constructed based on the PVC burden and on the presence or absence of reversible left ventricular dysfunction to determine a cutoff PVC burden that is associated with left ventricular dysfunction. RESULTS A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (mean 0.37 +/- 0.10) was present in 57 of 174 patients (33%). Patients with a decreased ejection fraction had a mean PVC burden of 33% +/- 13% as compared with those with normal left ventricular function 13% +/- 12% (P < .0001). A PVC burden of >24% best separated the patient population with impaired as compared with preserved left ventricular function (sensitivity 79%, specificity 78%, area under curve 0.89) The lowest PVC burden resulting in a reversible cardiomyopathy was 10%. In multivariate analysis, PVC burden (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.16; P < .01) was independently associated with PVC-induced cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSION A PVC burden of >24% was independently associated with PVC-induced cardiomyopathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据