Noninvasive therapy for the management of patients with advanced coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) in the management of patients with end-stage coronary artery disease (CAD). INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage CAD have symptoms such as recurrent angina, breathlessness, and other debilitating conditions. End-stage CAD patients are usually those who have angina pectoris following a coronary artery bypass surgery or a percutaneous coronary intervention. These patients are refractory to optimal medical therapy and not fit for a redo procedure, and are often termed as 'no option' patients. METHODS: We carried out a prospective cohort study to examine the effects of CSWT application in patients who had end-stage CAD and were no option patients. Characteristics such as angina class scores and functional status scores among cases (patients with end-stage CAD who received CSWT) and controls (patients with end-stage CAD who did not receive CSWT) were compared at baseline and at 6 months after CSWT therapy. RESULTS: There were 43 patients in the case group and 43 patients in the control group. The mean age of the patients was 58.7 ± 9.5 years in the case group and 56.6 ± 11.6 years in the control group. Other characteristics such as the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention were similar in both groups. Clinical results showed a significant improvement in exercise time between the cases and the controls 6 months after treatment with CSWT (20.1 ± 15.7 min in cases vs. 10.1 ± 4.2 min in controls; P<0.0001), and symptomatic improvement in the CCS class scores (1.95 ± 0.80 in cases and 2.63 ± 0.69 in controls; P<0.0001) and NYHA class scores (1.95 ± 0.80 in cases vs. 2.48 ± 0.59 in controls; P<0.001). In the control group, there was no improvement in angina class, functional class and exercise time. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that CSWT application to the ischemic myocardium in patients with refractory angina pectoris improved symptoms and reduced the severity of ischemic areas at 6 months after CSWT treatment compared with the baseline. No side effects were observed with this therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".