Quality of Life With Ivabradine in Patients With Angina Pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the effect of ivabradine on angina-related quality of life (QoL) in patients participating in the Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (SIGNIFY) QoL substudy. METHODS AND RESULTS: QoL was evaluated in a prespecified subgroup of SIGNIFY patients with angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class score, ≥ 2 at baseline) using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire and a generic visual analogue scale on health status. Data were available for 4187 patients (2084 ivabradine and 2103 placebo). There were improvements in QoL in both treatment groups. The primary outcome of change in physical limitation score at 12 months was 4.56 points for ivabradine versus 3.40 points for placebo (E, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, -0.14 to 2.05; P=0.085). The ivabradine-placebo difference in physical limitation score was significant at 6 months (P=0.048). At 12 months, the visual analogue scale and the other Seattle Angina Questionnaire dimensions were higher among ivabradine-treated patients, notably angina frequency (P<0.001) and disease perception (P=0.006). Patients with the worst QoL at baseline (ie, those in the lowest tertile of score) had the best improvement in QoL for 12 months, with improvements in physical limitation and a significant reduction in angina frequency (P=0.034). The effect on QoL was maintained over the study duration, and ivabradine patients had better scores on angina frequency at every visit to 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivabradine did not affect the primary outcome of change in physical limitation score at 12 months. It did produce consistent improvements in other self-reported QoL parameters related to angina pectoris, notably in terms of angina frequency and disease perception. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN61576291.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".