Two-year outcomes in patients with mild refractory angina treated with enhanced external counterpulsation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the International Enhanced External Counterpulsation Patient Registry (IEPR), approximately 85% of the patients treated are in Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III-IV with no option for further invasive coronary revascularization procedures. HYPOTHESIS: This study sought to determine whether it is clinically important to establish whether the observed durable reduction in disabling severe angina with enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) treatment can be extended to those with less severe CCS class II angina, who also have no option for further revascularization. METHODS: This study evaluated the immediate response, durability and clinical events over a 2-year period after EECP treatment in 112 patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class II angina versus 1346 patients with class III-IV angina using data from the International EECP Patient Registry (IEPR). RESULTS: Treatment with EECP significantly (by at least one CCS class) reduced angina frequency, nitroglycerin use, and improved quality of life in both groups. At 2-year follow-up, 74% of class II and 70% of class III-IV patients remained free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and continued to demonstrate a durable CCS class improvement over baseline. CONCLUSION: The robust effectiveness of EECP as a noninvasive device, together with its relatively low start-up and recurrent costs, makes it an attractive consideration for treating patients with milder refractory angina in addition to the patient with severely disabling angina treated in current practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".