Enhanced external counterpulsation in patients with refractory angina pectoris: a pilot study with six months follow-up regarding physical capacity and health-related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Refractory angina pectoris (AP) is a persistent, painful condition characterized by angina caused by coronary insufficiency in the presence of coronary artery disease. It has been emphasized that there are possible underlying neuropathophysiological mechanisms for refractory AP but chronic ischemia is still considered to be the main problem. These patients suffer from severe AP and cannot be controlled by a combination of pharmacological therapies, angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. AP has a negative impact on quality of life and daily life. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a therapeutic option for these patients. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate EECP after six months regarding physical capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with refractory AP. METHODS: This was a study with single case research experimental design involving 34 patients treated with EECP. Six minute walk test (6MWT), functional class with Canadian Cardiological Society (CCS) classification and self-reported HRQoL questionnaires as Short Form 36 (SF-36) were collected at baseline and after treatment. CCS class and SF-36 were repeated at six months follow-up. RESULTS: Patients enhanced walk distance on average by 29 m after EECP (p<0.01). CCS class also improved (p<0.001) and persisted at six months follow-up (p<0.001). HRQoL improved significantly and the effects were maintained at follow-up after the treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients with refractory AP receive beneficial effects from EECP both in physical capacity and HRQoL. As other treatment options for this patient group are scarce, EECP should be offered to improve physical health and HRQoL in these patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".