MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

24 Short-Term Effectiveness and Safety Profile of Ranolazine in Patients with Refractory Angina

2015· article· en· W2236275621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peysh A Patel, Chia Yau, S. Thapar, James Foley, Murad Moosa Khan, Paul Sainsbury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRanolazineTolerabilityAnginaInternal medicineCardiologyAdverse effectCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyRefractory (planetary science)Unstable anginaCoronary heart diseaseMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Refractory angina describes those patients with persistence of symptoms despite revascularisation and routine pharmacotherapy with β-blockers, calcium channel antagonists and nitrates. Ranolazine offers adjunct therapy in such cohorts, by providing anti-ischaemic effects complementary to existing agents. It is thought to be well-tolerated, without significant effects on haemodynamic parameters including heart rate and blood pressure. This prospective study aimed to establish the short-term effectiveness and safety profile of ranolazine in patients with refractory angina. Methods Bradford Royal Infirmary has a specialised cardiology service to manage refractory angina (BRAS). From their database, 50 consecutive patients were selected for inclusion between May 2013 and February 2014. All patients were commenced on ranolazine 375 mg twice daily at initial review, and therapy was continued for 1 month. Those who required up-titration of anti-anginals or revascularisation on clinical grounds were excluded from the study. Results of 6 min walks, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading of angina severity and QTc interval on resting ECG was tabulated, both pre-intervention and at 1 month. Wilcoxon signed rank sum testing was applied to measure differences in outcome. Patients were surveyed to assess for tolerability and adverse events. Results 45 patients were eligible for inclusion. 87% (39/45) were male, with a mean age of 65.2 years (SD 12.3). At 1 month, there was a median increase in 6 min walk of 30 metres (95% CI: 25 – 60; p = 0.0002). CCS grading class for angina severity reduced by 0.5 (95% CI: 0 – 0.86; p < 0.0001). Daily frequency of GTN usage decreased by 50% (4 vs. 2; p = 0.068). QTc increased by 3 ms, a non-significant difference (95% CI: 6 – 12; p = 0.395). 91% (41/45) tolerated therapy without concern. In the remainder (9%), reported side-effects included fatigue, blisters, constipation and dizziness. In all cases, this resulted in discontinuation of therapy. Conclusions These findings suggest that ranolazine offers effective additive therapy in patients with persistent anginal symptoms who have been otherwise optimised. Despite our small sample size, results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in performance on 6 min walk, CCS grading score and usage of GTN spray. Overall, ranolazine was well-tolerated without QTc prolongation or overt side-effects. Further studies are indicated to establish whether effects are maintained in the longer term.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→