Enhanced External Counterpulsation in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease-Associated Erectile Dysfunction. Part I: Effects of Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently it has been demonstrated that enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) could improve erectile dysfunction (ED) in patients with refractory ischemic heart disease (IHD). AIM: To assess the effect of risk factors on the efficacy and the satisfaction rate of EECP in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD)-associated ED. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To assess the effect of risk factors on EECP efficacy and satisfaction rate, we compared the pre- and post-EECP responses to erectile function domain, Q3, and Q4 in patients with and without risk factors. Overall satisfaction and global efficacy question (GEQ) were also assessed. METHODS: A total of 44 male consecutive patients with intractable angina caused by coronary insufficiency which cannot be controlled by conventional therapy were enrolled in this study. Patients were screened and followed up for ED using erectile function domain of the International Index for Erectile Function. A thorough sexual, medical, and psychosocial history was taken from all patients. RESULTS: All patients had severe diffuse triple vessels disease. They all had class III or IV angina. They were receiving the maximal antianginal pharmacotherapy. The mean age +/- SD was 57.1 +/- 5.6 years. Of the patients, 63.9% were below 60 years, and 86.4% were current or ex-smokers. There were significant differences between pre- and post-EECP regarding erectile function domain, Q3, and Q4. The sociodemographic variables were not significantly different among the studies groups and had not affected the GEQ or overall satisfaction. Overall satisfaction and GEQ were negatively influenced by smoking and presence of more than two risk factors. However, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, myocardial infraction, and obesity have not had such effects. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and satisfaction rate of EECP in patients with CAD-associated ED were negatively influenced by presence of risk factors; however, the global efficacy and the overall patients' satisfaction were encouraging.
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) | 0.001 | 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".