Enhanced External Counterpulsation Has No Lasting Effect on Ambulatory Blood Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) has been reported to reduce blood pressure (BP) using clinic BP readings. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a course of EECP on BP using ambulatory BP (ABP) measurements. HYPOTHESIS: EECP has a lasting BP lowering effect. METHODS: Patients referred for EECP due to refractory angina pectoris were consecutively included in the study. The ABPs were measured for 24 hours using a Spacelabs Ultralite 90217 device at 5 time points during the study period: 2 months before the EECP course, just before the EECP course, just after the EECP course, and at 3 and 12 months after EECP. Antihypertensive medication was held constant during the study period. Changes in BP were tested by repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study. The mean age was 63 years, and 72% were male. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Angina Grading Scale class improved from a mean of 2.6 to 1.5. The mean daytime ABPs were 114/69, 114/70, 115/71, 114/70, and 116/71 mm Hg and the mean nighttime ABPs were 107/63, 108/63, 106/62, 108/63, and 107/62 mm Hg at 2 months before the EECP course, just before the EECP course, just after the EECP course, and at 3 and 12 months after EECP, respectively (all P > 0.10). Further, when controlling for quartiles of baseline ABP level, no significant change in ABP was found. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced external counterpulsation treatment has no lasting effect on ABP.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".