Spinal cord stimulation in patients with refractory anginal pain and normal coronary arteries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be effective in patients with refractory angina and coronary artery disease. No previous study assessed the clinical effects of SCS in patients with refractory angina who present angiographically normal coronary arteries. METHODS: SCS was performed in 7 patients (4 men, 3 women, mean age 59.3 +/- 11 years) with refractory angina and normal coronary arteries. Clinical status was assessed 1 month after SCS device implantation and at a mean follow-up of 11 months (range 2-17 months) by: 1) an estimate of the number of anginal attacks and nitrate consumption in the 2 weeks prior to implantation and to follow-up visits; 2) a score of quality of life by a visual analogic scale; 3) a five-item questionnaire assessing effort angina and satisfaction with treatment; 4) treadmill exercise testing. RESULTS: At the last follow-up the number of anginal episodes (p < 0.001) and nitrate consumption (p < 0.004) were both reduced by SCS. Visual analogic scale score improved from 2.1 +/- 0.98 to 9.0 +/- 0.9 (p < 0.001) at 1 month and to 6.4 +/- 2.3 (p < 0.01) at the last follow-up. Questionnaire analysis showed that mild (p = 0.006) and moderate (p = 0.000) physical activity, as well as patient satisfaction with anginal status (p = 0.000) and with current treatment (p = 0.000) all improved by SCS. Finally, time to 1 mm ST segment depression, time to angina, and exercise duration were all prolonged by SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Our data point out that SCS may considerably improve anginal symptoms and exercise tolerance in a significant number of patients with refractory angina and normal coronary arteries and therefore it should be considered as a valuable treatment option in this group of 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".