MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7037629873

Enhanced external counterpulsation treatment in patients with refractory angina pectoris with emphasis on physical capacity, health-related quality of life and safety : An explorative and interventional study

2021· article· en· W7037629873 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueJonkoping University Library (Jönköping University) · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePain Management and Treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuality of life (healthcare)AnginaLimitingCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyQualitative researchRefractory (planetary science)Focus groupStable angina
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP) suffer from debilitating symptoms with considerable limitation of functional capacity and impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) despite optimised medical therapy. In addition, frequent angina symptoms are strongly associated with psychological distress. The challenging management of RAP and the severe limitations and symptomatology experienced by these patients underscore the need for further research in more novel treatment approaches. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a potential non-invasive treatment that can decrease limiting symptoms in patients with RAP and is generally given as 35 one-hour sessions (i.e., one course) over seven weeks. Aim: The overall aim was to obtain a deeper understanding of patients’ experiences undergoing EECP treatment and to evaluate the effects of the treatment with focus on physical capacity, HRQoL and safety. Methods: An explorative and interventional study comprising both qualitative (paper I) and quantitative (papers II, III, and IV) study designs were performed. In paper I, semi-structured interviews took place with 15 strategically selected patients who had finished an EECP course at the two existing EECP clinics in Sweden. Data were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis. In paper II, a quasi-experimental study with one-group pre-test/post-test design with a six-month follow-up was performed with 50 patients who had undergone one EECP course. The following pre- and post-treatment data were collected: medication use, six-minute walk test (6MWT), functional class according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), self-reported (i.e., questionnaire data) cardiac anxiety, and HRQoL. The questionnaires were also completed at a six-month follow-up. In paper III and IV, sociodemographic, medical, and clinical data related to EECP were collected by reviewing medical records of 119 patients with RAP who had undergone one EECP course and a 6MWT pre- and post-treatment. An increased walking distance by 10% post treatment, measured with 6MWT, was considered an adequate treatment response. Results: In paper I, the findings were divided into four content areas, each comprising three categories: (1) experiences before EECP was initiated comprised of uncharted territory, be given a new opportunity and gain insight; (2) experiences during EECP sessions comprised physical discomfort, need of distraction, and sense of security; (3) experiences between EECP sessions comprised physical changes, socializing, and coordinating everyday life; and (4) experiences after one course of EECP treatment comprised improved physical well-being, improved mental well-being and maintaining angina in check. In paper II, patients used significantly less short-acting nitrates (p <. 001), walking distance increased on average by 46 m (p < .001), and CCS class improved after one EECP course (p < .001). In addition, all but one subscale of cardiac anxiety and all HRQoL components improved significantly, and the positive effects were maintained at the six-month follow-up (p < .05). In paper III, 49 (41.2%) of the 119 patients, were responders to EECP. CCS class ≥ 3, left ventricle ejection fraction < 50%, and previous revascularisation (i.e., ≤ one type of intervention) were predictors of response (p < .05). In paper IV, the treatment completion rate was high, and the occurrence of adverse events (AE) was low. Most device-related AE required nursing actions, while medical actions were needed more in the non-device-related AE. The AE distribution did not differ between responders and non-responders. Skin lesion/blister occurred mostly in responders and paraesthesia occurred mostly in non-responders. Conclusions: The EECP treatment was perceived as an unknown option among these patients but also as be given a new opportunity to get better. The presence and care provided by the cardiac nurse contributed to a sense of security during treatment. The treatment resulted in reduced symptom burden, improved physical capacity and HRQoL, and less cardiac anxiety, leading to increased physical activity and enhanced life satisfaction for patients with RAP. Moreover, the EECP should be considered preferentially for patients who have a greater functional impairment, evidence of systolic left ventricular dysfunction, and exposure to fewer types of revascularisation. The EECP treatment appears to be a safe and well-tolerated treatment option in patients with RAP.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai non randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,011

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,246
Écart entre enseignants0,218 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJonkoping University Library (Jönköping University)Même sujetPain Management and TreatmentTravaux en français237 207