Effects of Enhance External Counterpulsation and Cardiac Rehabilitation on Clinical Parameters and Plasma Nitric Oxide, Endothelin1 and High Sensitive CRP in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Cardiovascular diseases are of the most common causes of death in the world. In this study we have compared the Enhance External Counter Pulsation )EECP) method with cardiac rehabilitation method based on clinical parameters and inflammatory markers in treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Materials and Methods: 44 patients with coronary artery disease were randomized in two groups: EECPgroup (twenty one-hour session (22patients)) and cardiac rehabilitation group twenty sessions with specificprotocol (22 patients). Patient's information was collected before and after intervention. Outcomes of studywas clinical improvement and increase in serum NO,decrease in hs-CRP and endothelin1 levels. Results: 20% of patients were female and 80% were male in the range of 35 to 75 years old. The hs-CRP level in EECP group was decreased from 1.52±0.7 to 1.27±0.4 µg/ml and was decreased from 1.98±0.6 to 1.75±0.6 µg/ml in cardiac rehabilitation group. NO level was increased from 7.87±0.99 to 8.21±1.27 ng/lit in EECP group and from 8.28±6.49 to 8.31±6.26 ng/lit in cardiac rehabilitation group. And, endothelin1 level decreased in both groups (P=0.38). But was not statistically meaningful. Conclusion: Both cardiac rehabilitation and EECP were effective in improvement of class of angina and quality of life. Increase in serum NO and decrease in hs-CRP and endothelin1 levels, in patients with coronary artery diseases, were seen. But these modalities did not show preferences to each other in therapeutic approaches, at present study.
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) | 0.001 | 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".