Why the study?
Is ventricular ectopy always a manifestation of a disease process, and should it always be treated?
Is ventricular ectopy always a manifestation of a disease process, and should it always be treated?
This review provides a historical perspective on ventricular ectopy, its prognostic implications, and current approaches to its treatment.
Ventricular ectopy warrants context-specific evaluation rather than blanket treatment; leaves open optimal strategies across prognostic subsets.
IS VENTRICULAR ectopy always a manifestation of a disease process or can it be found in normal persons? When present, should ventricular ectopy always be treated? To answer these questions, one must delve into medical history, a history rich in anecdote and opinion but muddled in its distinction between disease and health. We review herein the historical development of knowledge about, and attitudes toward, ventricular ectopy, the recent reports delineating patients with ventricular ectopy into prognostically different subsets, and the current approach to the treatment of patients with ventricular ectopy. Historical Perspective Although the art of palpating the pulse was practiced as early as 500 BC in ancient China,¹it was not until the second century BC that Herophilus described what we now recognize as extrasystoles.²However, writers after Herophilus did not make reference to extrasystoles per se but rather talked about the "intermittent pulse." The most influential
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael J. Horan (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: