Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy Reduces Angina and Improves Myocardial Function in Patients With Refractory Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safe and effective therapeutic management of refractory coronary artery disease (CAD) in heart patients is critical to enhance cardiovascular function and improve quality of life. Current therapies for refractory CAD are inadequate in ameliorating angina and promoting revascularization of ischemic myocardium. HYPOTHESIS: Cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) is a safe and effective noninvasive intervention in the management of patients with refractory CAD. METHODS: The study enrolled 9 male patients age 50 to 70 years (5.11 ± 5.46 years) with a diagnosis of CAD and stent implantation (3.00 ± 2.24 stents). CSWT was carried out for 3 months at 3 intervals during the first week of each month (first, third, and fifth day), for a total of 9 therapies per patient. Dobutamine stress echocardiography and radionuclide angiography identified the myocardial ischemic segments. The effects of CSWT on myocardial perfusion and systolic function were examined. Other outcome measures included myocardial injury enzyme markers, angina scale, nitroglycerin dosage, and cardiopulmonary fitness assessments. RESULTS: Improved myocardial blood flow and regional systolic function (stress peak systolic strain rate - 1.10 to - 1.60 s(-1), P = 0.002) were detected in patients following CSWT. Reductions in creatine kinase (87.89 ± 36.69 to 86.22 ± 35.96 IU/L, P = 0.046), creatine kinase MB (10.89 ± 5.73 to 10.11 ± 5.93 IU/L, P = 0.008), aspartate transaminase (interquartile range [IQR], 28.00 to 27.00 IU/L, P = 0.034) were also found. Angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale IQR 3.0 to 2.0, P = 0.035) and nitroglycerin dose reduction (IQR 3.0 to 1.0 times/wk, P = 0.038) were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study is a preliminary assessment of CSWT in patients with refractory CAD. We report that CSWT is a noninvasive, effective, and safe intervention in the treatment of refractory CAD.
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".