Enhanced External Counterpulsation in the Treatment of Chronic Refractory Angina: A Long‐term Follow‐up Outcome from the International Enhanced External Counterpulsation Patient Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of patients who suffer from medically refractory angina and are unsuitable for conventional revascularization therapy is often unsatisfactory. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a noninvasive treatment that is safe and effective immediately after a course of treatment. However, the duration of benefit is less certain. HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the 3-year outcome of EECP treatment. METHODS: One thousand four hundred and twenty seven patients from 36 centers registered in the International EECP Patient Registry (IEPR)-Phase 1 was prospectively followed for a median of 37 months. Two hundred and twenty patients (15.4%) died, while 1,061 patients (74.4%) completed their follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age was 66+/-11 years and 72% were men. Seventy-six percent had multivessel coronary disease for 11+/-8 years. Eighty-eight percent had a prior percutaneous or surgical revascularization and 82% were unsuitable for further coronary intervention. Immediately post-EECP, the proportion of patients with severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Angina Classification [CCS] III/IV) were reduced from 89% to 25%, p<0.001. The CCS class was improved by at least 1 class in 78% of the patients and by at least 2 classes in 38%. This was sustained in 74% of the patients during follow-up.Thirty-six percent of the patients had CCS II or less angina, which was better than pre-EECP state without a major adverse cardiovascular event during follow-up. More severe baseline angina and a history of heart failure or diabetes were independent predictors of unfavorable outcome. CONCLUSION: An EECP improves angina and quality of life immediately after a course of treatment. For most of the patients, these beneficial effects are sustained for 3 years.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".