Long-term effects of spinal cord stimulation on angina symptoms and quality of life in patients with refractory angina pectoris—results from the European Angina Registry Link Study (EARL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on angina symptoms and quality of life in patients with refractory angina pectoris defined as severe angina due to coronary artery disease resistant to conventional pharmacological therapy and/or revascularisation. METHODS: During 2003-2005, all patients with refractory angina referred for SCS treatment at 10 European centres were consecutively included in the European registry for refractory angina (European Angina Registry Link, EARL), a prospective, 3-year follow-up study. In the present study, the SCS-treated patients were followed-up regarding angina symptoms and quality of life assessed was with a generic (Short Form 36, SF-36) and a disease-specific (Seattle Angina Questionnaire, SAQ) quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 235 patients were included in the study. After screening, 121 patients were implanted and followed up 12.1 months after implantation. The implanted patients reported fewer angina attacks (p<0.0001), reduced short-acting nitrate consumption (p<0.0001) and improved Canadian Cardiovascular Society class (p<0.0001). Furthermore, quality of life was significantly improved in all dimensions of the SF-36 and the SAQ. Seven (5.8%) of the implanted patients died within 1 year of follow up. CONCLUSIONS: SCS treatment is associated with symptom relief and improved quality of life in patients with refractory angina pectoris suffering from severe coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".