Spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina pectoris: a retrospective analysis of efficacy and cost-benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory angina pectoris have severe symptoms despite optimal medication, but are not suitable for revascularisation. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for treating refractory angina pectoris since 1985. The efficacy of SCS has been proven by randomised controlled trials and follow-up studies have shown that SCS is a safe treatment. The objective of the current study was to retrospectively analyse the clinical outcomes and cost-benefit of SCS in patients with refractory angina pectoris. METHODS: Eighteen months after SCS implantation, the effects on Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) functional level and acute symptom relief of 24 patients with permanent SCS were analysed by review of medical records. Nineteen of these 24 patients were able to report their anginal frequency, nitroglycerin consumption and subjective perception on physical activity and quality of life. RESULTS: Angina frequency decreased from a median of 14.0 to 2.3 attacks/week (p < 0.01). Nitroglycerin intake decreased from a median of 27.5 to 1.5 doses/week (p < 0.01). Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class improved from a median of three to two (p < 0.001). During a three-year period before SCS implantation, the hospitalisation rate and duration related to coronary artery disease increased progressively. The duration of hospitalisation increased from a median of three to 10 days/patient/year. In the year after SCS implantation the duration of hospitalisation decreased to a median of 0 day/patient/year (p < 0.001). The cost of hospital care due to coronary artery disease decreased significantly thereafter. The total cost of SCS procedure was recovered within 16 months after implantation, which is less than 40% of the device life span. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study indicates that SCS treatment alleviates angina symptoms and improves quality of life. The treatment is also effective in preventing hospitalisations and saving costs in hospital care. A prospective study is warranted to confirm the current observations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".