Long-term results following percutaneous myocardial laser therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The usefulness and safety of percutaneous myocardial laser therapy in selected patients have been identified in previous 1-year randomized trial reports, including that from a double-blind, sham-controlled trial we independently conducted. We aimed to determine whether the 1-year effects are maintained through a long-term, longitudinal follow-up. METHODS: Patients (n=77) with chronic, stable, medically refractory angina (class III or IV) not amenable to conventional revascularization and with evidence of reversible ischemia, ejection fraction > or =25%, and myocardial wall thickness > or =8 mm were treated with percutaneous myocardial laser. After the 1-year follow-up and disclosure of all randomized assignments as prespecified in the respective study protocol, patients were followed up longitudinally for a mean of 3 years for angina class, left ventricular ejection fraction, medication usage, and adverse events. RESULTS: No procedural mortality, myocardial infarction, or cerebral embolism occurred. Pericardiocentesis was required in two patients (2.6%). Cardiac event-free survival was 88% at 1 year and 66% at late follow-up. Mean Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class was significantly improved from baseline (3.2+/-0.4) at 1 year (2.2+/-1.1, P<0.001) and at a mean of 3 years (1.9+/-1.2, P<0.001). Nitrate usage was significantly reduced at late follow-up; however, ejection fraction did not change over time. In a multivariate analysis, angina improvement at 1 year was found to be a significant independent predictor of both survival and angina improvement at late follow-up. CONCLUSION: We conclude that percutaneous myocardial laser therapy in selected patients with severe, medically refractory angina not treatable with conventional revascularization induces significant and sustained symptomatic benefit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".