Aa
Normal amount of PVC's
Can you tell me what a normal number of PVC's/PAC's would be per day. I don't know if one a minute or one an hour or one a day is considered occasional or quite a bit. I get maybe one every hour where it feels like a skippy, flutter or bang. I have been to a cardiologist and she says he gets them as well but I forgot to ask if let's say one every hour is okay. Sometimes I will feel them every couple of minutes and then they just disappear for a couple of hours. Could you please tell me from what you have seen in your practice how many skips, flips, bangs or flutters would be acceptable. Cardiologist says I have a normal heart. I have had these things for 20 years plus. What would you do with a patient complaining of this if all tests come back negative.
The study states that there was a greater risk to those who had PVC"s in the recovery phase after maxium heart rate has been reached. I also think that the subjects did not have PVC's like we, (upbeat and I) have. I interperted the study not to mean if you have PVC's you are at risk, cause if you have PVC's you have them at any point,before during and after excercise. If PVC's have been diagnosed as benign they are benign. I think that the subjects in this study were not PVC sufferers. I think they were using PVC's as a sign of posible problems in an otherwis asymptomatic person.
You, friend, like to dance around an old bush.
Non sequiturs: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence, Or a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
I really don't see how you can infer that I am changing the meaning of the term risk. I don't see that anywhere in my post. Further, I don't see your point in being negative--if as you say, I am being positive. I like my position a whole lot better.
Am I to sit and brood, and worry about "something I have no control over", nor do any doctors because there isn't effective treatment without greater risk, even if there IS a risk associated with post exercise pvcs in a small percentage of study participants from one study?
Show me a study that clearly points to less risk of mortality from post exercise pvcs-- because of intervention--and I'll gladly read it and show it to as many doctors as I possibly can. I mean, that's the point right? Helping people.
You still hold tight to that ONE study, which as you point out, studies are imperfect. So I have every confidence in using my own case history as a single individual, especially as I believe the subjects of the study you mention were all men. Older men. And I still haven't been convinced that they were screened for anything other than "no previous heart attack history". So what is to say there weren't multiple factors in that small percentage who had post exercice pvcs and later died of cardiovascular event?
You also suggest that whether effective treatments exist, or not, is irrelevant if pvcs pose a risk. WHAT? Isn't the whole point of intervention, for any condition, to decrease the risk of a serious consequence or complication from the condition without causing further assult from the treatment itself? It is highly relevant. The fact remains unchanged, there is increased risk of mortality in a small percentage of participants who had post exercise pvcs.
But I suppose if you want to twist and turn my statements, so be it. But I'm not here to define, or challenge the meaning of words.
Non sequiturs: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence, Or a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
I really don't see how you can infer that I am changing the meaning of the term risk. I don't see that anywhere in my post. Further, I don't see your point in being negative--if as you say, I am being positive. I like my position a whole lot better.
Am I to sit and brood, and worry about "something I have no control over", nor do any doctors because there isn't effective treatment without greater risk, even if there IS a risk associated with post exercise pvcs in a small percentage of study participants from one study?
Show me a study that clearly points to less risk of mortality from post exercise pvcs-- because of intervention--and I'll gladly read it and show it to as many doctors as I possibly can. I mean, that's the point right? Helping people.
You still hold tight to that ONE study, which as you point out, studies are imperfect. So I have every confidence in using my own case history as a single individual, especially as I believe the subjects of the study you mention were all men. Older men. And I still haven't been convinced that they were screened for anything other than "no previous heart attack history". So what is to say there weren't multiple factors in that small percentage who had post exercice pvcs and later died of cardiovascular event?
You also suggest that whether effective treatments exist, or not, is irrelevant if pvcs pose a risk. WHAT? Isn't the whole point of intervention, for any condition, to decrease the risk of a serious consequence or complication from the condition without causing further assult from the treatment itself? It is highly relevant. The fact remains unchanged, there is increased risk of mortality in a small percentage of participants who had post exercise pvcs.
But I suppose if you want to twist and turn my statements, so be it. But I'm not here to define, or challenge the meaning of words.
No offense taken, but your arguements are non sequiturs.
The cause of PVCs is not relevant to if they pose a risk. Whether or not effective treatments exist for them is not relevant to if they pose a risk. Whether or not you, as a sample size of one, has lived with PVCs for decades is not relevant to if they pose a risk.
Changing the definition of risk to mean certainty is incorrectly applying the term, and is also not relevant to if they pose a risk.
Choosing a positive outlook by not worrying about something over which you may have no control also is not relevant to if they pose a risk.
The risk is inherent. It is there or it is not. We test for these risk factors with studies. For an assertion to be rooted in science and not wishful thinking, there should be repeatable, experimental evidence (which in medicine seems to generally take the form of studies) that can be analyzed to give information about these risk factors. These seem to be in short supply, while other, albiet imperfect (few studies are perfect) studies showing risk are abundant.
The cause of PVCs is not relevant to if they pose a risk. Whether or not effective treatments exist for them is not relevant to if they pose a risk. Whether or not you, as a sample size of one, has lived with PVCs for decades is not relevant to if they pose a risk.
Changing the definition of risk to mean certainty is incorrectly applying the term, and is also not relevant to if they pose a risk.
Choosing a positive outlook by not worrying about something over which you may have no control also is not relevant to if they pose a risk.
The risk is inherent. It is there or it is not. We test for these risk factors with studies. For an assertion to be rooted in science and not wishful thinking, there should be repeatable, experimental evidence (which in medicine seems to generally take the form of studies) that can be analyzed to give information about these risk factors. These seem to be in short supply, while other, albiet imperfect (few studies are perfect) studies showing risk are abundant.
I mean no offense in my post to you, as you said you mean no offense in your post to the doctor, but you seem a bit like a dog with a bone, unwilling to give it up.
I think the medical doctors, cardiologists and EP's are giving the best answer possible, based on the information on hand, they don't really know what causes pvcs, there are triggers for some people, there really isn't anything that works well to suppress them but treatment of beta-blockers is suggested.
Anti-arrhythmic drugs and/or ablation carries greater risk of serious side-effects--greater than the pvcs themselves. And in ONE GROUP OF SUBJECTS studied, *POST-EXERCISE* pvcs increased the risk of cardiovascular death in a small percentage of participants. Maybe you can aprise me of other facts of the study: did they screen for all other possible risk factors for cardiovascular disease besides the subjects being free of heart attack before the study? I've had post-exercise pvcs for 27 years at a greater frequency than listed in that study, I'm hopeful I'll be around for at least another 27.
Oh, and I think that the chances of being in a motor vehicle collision on the way to work are actually very high. Fatal? Who is to say. But seat belts protect against injury they don't prevent a fatality.
I think the medical doctors, cardiologists and EP's are giving the best answer possible, based on the information on hand, they don't really know what causes pvcs, there are triggers for some people, there really isn't anything that works well to suppress them but treatment of beta-blockers is suggested.
Anti-arrhythmic drugs and/or ablation carries greater risk of serious side-effects--greater than the pvcs themselves. And in ONE GROUP OF SUBJECTS studied, *POST-EXERCISE* pvcs increased the risk of cardiovascular death in a small percentage of participants. Maybe you can aprise me of other facts of the study: did they screen for all other possible risk factors for cardiovascular disease besides the subjects being free of heart attack before the study? I've had post-exercise pvcs for 27 years at a greater frequency than listed in that study, I'm hopeful I'll be around for at least another 27.
Oh, and I think that the chances of being in a motor vehicle collision on the way to work are actually very high. Fatal? Who is to say. But seat belts protect against injury they don't prevent a fatality.
Hi there! I remember that name!
You are right, having PVCs CERTAINLY does not mean you are going to die from them. That is not the definition of risk.
Modifying your airplane analogy a bit, the chance that if you would be in a fatal car crash on the way to work today is slim. Isn't it silly to REQUIRE seatbelts be installed in all cars for what is an admitedly slim possibility?
If I am overweight, it does not mean I will die from a complication of it. It simply means I am at increased risk. Likewise with smoking and many other risk factors; NONE of them are automatic death sentences, simply risk factors.
You are right, having PVCs CERTAINLY does not mean you are going to die from them. That is not the definition of risk.
Modifying your airplane analogy a bit, the chance that if you would be in a fatal car crash on the way to work today is slim. Isn't it silly to REQUIRE seatbelts be installed in all cars for what is an admitedly slim possibility?
If I am overweight, it does not mean I will die from a complication of it. It simply means I am at increased risk. Likewise with smoking and many other risk factors; NONE of them are automatic death sentences, simply risk factors.
I guess I've had every sensation there is with respect to how the pvcs feel. No wait, probably not, every time it feels different I wonder if something has changed.
Point is, when you focus on them, you feel them. I get on average 1200/hr, every hour. I don't feel every one, thank goodness, but I do feel a lot of thumps, and drops and, like I said just about everything you could describe. I've come to learn that just because it's different, doesn't mean it's something bad. It's just different.
Funny thing is, when I do get a lot in a row, 10 or 20, I usually don't feel much different. When I get a break and have normal beats for a couple of minutes, that feels strange! Go figure.
Point is, when you focus on them, you feel them. I get on average 1200/hr, every hour. I don't feel every one, thank goodness, but I do feel a lot of thumps, and drops and, like I said just about everything you could describe. I've come to learn that just because it's different, doesn't mean it's something bad. It's just different.
Funny thing is, when I do get a lot in a row, 10 or 20, I usually don't feel much different. When I get a break and have normal beats for a couple of minutes, that feels strange! Go figure.
You are reading content posted in the Heart Rhythm Forum
Are there grounds to recommend coffee consumption? Recent studies perk interest.
Salt in food can hurt your heart.
Get answers to your top questions about this common — but scary — symptom
How to know when chest pain may be a sign of something else
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
