4.7 Review

Nonsustained Ventricular Tachycardia

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 60, 期 20, 页码 1993-2004

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.12.063

关键词

nonsustained; tachycardia; unsustained; ventricular

资金

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. Pfizer
  3. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  4. Sanofi
  5. Boehringer Ingelheim
  6. Daiichi
  7. St. Jude Medical
  8. Merck
  9. Bayer
  10. Medtronic
  11. ESC Textbook of Cardiology
  12. Kumar and Clarke Textbook of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) has been recorded in a wide range of conditions, from apparently healthy individuals to patients with significant heart disease. In the absence of heart disease, the prognostic significance of NSVT is debatable. When detected during exercise, and especially at recovery, NSVT indicates increased cardiovascular mortality within the next decades. In trained athletes, NSVT is considered benign when suppressed by exercise. In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, NSVT occurring beyond 48 h after admission indicates an increased risk of cardiac and sudden death, especially when associated with myocardial ischemia. In acute myocardial infarction, in-hospital NSVT has an adverse prognostic significance when detected beyond the first 13 to 24 h. In patients with prior myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion and beta-blockers, NSVT is not an independent predictor of long-term mortality when other covariates such as left ventricular ejection fraction are taken into account. In patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and most probably genetic channelopathies, NSVT carries prognostic significance, whereas its independent prognostic ability in ischemic heart failure and dilated cardiomyopathy has not been established. The management of patients with NSVT is aimed at treating the underlying heart disease. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1993-2004) (C) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

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

4.7
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