Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation and Management of Premature Ventricular Complexes

Open access
Marcus, Gregory M.·2020·Circulation

Abstract

Premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) are extremely common, found in the majority of individuals undergoing long-term ambulatory monitoring. Increasing age, a taller height, a higher blood pressure, a history of heart disease, performance of less physical activity, and smoking each predict a greater PVC frequency. Although the fundamental causes of PVCs remain largely unknown, potential mechanisms for any given PVC include triggered activity, automaticity, and reentry. PVCs are commonly asymptomatic but can also result in palpitations, dyspnea, presyncope, and fatigue. The history, physical examination, and 12-lead ECG are each critical to the diagnosis and evaluation of a PVC. An echocardiogram is indicated in the presence of symptoms or particularly frequent PVCs, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is helpful when the evaluation suggests the presence of associated structural heart disease. Ambulatory monitoring is required to assess PVC frequency. The prognosis of those with PVCs is variable, with ongoing uncertainty regarding the most informative predictors of adverse outcomes. An increased PVC frequency may be a risk factor for heart failure and death, and the resolution of systolic dysfunction after successful catheter ablation of PVCs demonstrates that a causal relationship can be present. Patients with no or mild symptoms, a low PVC burden, and normal ventricular function may be best served with simple reassurance. Either medical treatment or catheter ablation are considered first-line therapies in most patients with PVCs associated with symptoms or a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and patient preference plays a role in determining which to try first. If medical treatment is selected, either β-blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are reasonable drugs in patients with normal ventricular systolic function. Other antiarrhythmic drugs should be considered if those initial drugs fail and ablation has been declined, has been unsuccessful, or has been deemed inappropriate. Catheter ablation is the most efficacious approach to eradicate PVCs but may confer increased upfront risks. Original research remains necessary to identify individuals at risk for PVC-induced cardiomyopathy and to identify preventative and therapeutic approaches targeting the root causes of PVCs to maximize effectiveness while minimizing risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.119.042434

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 87 references

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Marcus, G. M.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2020-04-28
Volume
141
Issue
17
Pages
1404-1418
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W3017412174
Cited by
281
References
87
FWCI
18.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation and Management of Premature Ventricular Complexes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.119.042434
The paper
Marcus, G. M. (2020). Evaluation and Management of Premature Ventricular Complexes. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.119.042434

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.