Treatment of Stable Angina Pectoris With Ivabradine in Everyday Practice: A Pan‐Hellenic, Prospective, Noninterventional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In coronary artery disease (CAD), medical treatment is the main clinical strategy for controlling ischemia and angina symptoms while restoring a satisfactory level of usual activities and improving quality of life (QOL). This study's purpose was to evaluate in CAD patients the antianginal efficacy of 4-month treatment with ivabradine plus a β-blocker and to record patient compliance and the effect of treatment on QOL. METHODS: In this noninterventional study, 2403 patients with chronic stable angina were prospectively studied from 245 private cardiology offices. Data were recorded at baseline and at 1 and 4 months after inclusion. Patient quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. RESULTS: From baseline to study completion, mean heart rate decreased from 81.5 ± 9.7 bpm to 63.9 ± 6.0 bpm (P <-0.001), mean number of anginal attacks decreased from 2.0 ± 2.0 times/wk to 0.2 ± 0.6 times/wk (P < 0.001) and nitroglycerin consumption decreased from 1.4 ± 2.0 times/wk to 0.1 ± 0.4 times/wk (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class I increased from approximately 38% (baseline) to 84% (study completion; P < 0.001). The reduction in anginal attacks, nitroglycerin consumption, and angina score was correlated with reduction in heart rate (P < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D visual analogue scale index increased by 16.1 points (P < 0.001), and compliance with treatment was high throughout the trial (96%). CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine administration on top of optimal individualized dose of β-blockers is associated with decreased anginal events and with improvement of QOL in CAD 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".