The immediate and long‐term outcome of enhanced external counterpulsation in treatment of chronic stable refractory angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of angina recalcitrant to conventional pharmacological therapy and revascularization remains problematic. Safe, effective and affordable treatments with high patient acceptability are desirable. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) may fulfil these criteria better than many other proposed interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the immediate and long-term effect of EECP in treatment of chronic stable refractory angina. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of consecutive patients treated with EECP and follow-up for 1 year. SETTING: Teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina grading, weekly angina frequency and glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) use. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were treated with EECP and 58 completed a course of treatment. Further analysis is confined to those who completed EECP. About 52% of patients suffered from CCS III and IV angina prior to EECP. Immediately post-EECP, angina improved by at least one CCS class in 86% and by two classes in 59%. At 1-year follow-up, sustained improvement in CCS was observed in 78% of the patients. The median weekly angina frequency and GTN use were significantly reduced immediately after EECP [7 (4-14) vs. 1 (0-4) episodes per week and 7 (2-16) vs. 0 (0-2) times per week respectively, P < 0.0001; data in median (interquartile range)]. The reduction was sustained at 1-year follow-up. In 48 patients, their mean exercise time improved significantly after EECP [301 +/- 130 s vs. 379 +/- 147 s, P < 0.0001]. Major adverse treatment-related events were rare. CONCLUSION: This study shows that for patients who fail to respond to conventional measures, a high proportion gain symptomatic benefit from EECP.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".