Comparison of patients undergoing enhanced external counterpulsation and spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As more patients survive coronary events, the prevalence of patients with refractory angina pectoris is increasing. The aim was to evaluate the effects of enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and compare with optimal medically treated patients with refractory angina. METHODS: 153 patients with refractory angina were treated with either EECP, SCS, or were retained on their pharmacological treatment (control). Glyceryl trinitrate usage and Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification were registered at baseline, 6 and 12 months after therapy. RESULTS: Both EECP and SCS reduced the angina as compared with controls (P<0.001). Patients treated with EECP showed a more effective reduction as compared with SCS patients (P<0.05). Both treatments resulted in significantly decreased glyceryl trinitrate usage at 6 and 12 months follow-up (P<0.001). The nitrate consumed was unaltered in the controls. DISCUSSION: The results from this study show that both EECP and SCS therapy reduce angina in patients with refractory angina pectoris; the response to EECP was slightly more effective than that to SCS. Thus, EECP can be used as an alternative treatment for patients not responding to electrical stimulation. The beneficial effects in the treated groups were maintained during the 12 months follow-up period.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".