A CLINICAL STUDY OF THE EXTRACORPOREAL CARDIAC SHOCK WAVE THERAPY FOR CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the security and efficiency of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) for treatment of coronary artery disease. Methods A total of 45 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) were included in this study (Male 36, Female 9, mean age 67 years old). patients were randomly divide into Shock wave therapy group (25 patients were treated with the shock wave energy, 200 shots/spot at 0.09 mJ/mm2 for 9 spots, amount to 9 times within 3 month) and control group (20 patients were not treated with shock wave energy). The testing time points of patients in shock wave therapy group were before shock wave therapy (0 month), the end of nine times of shock wave therapy (3 month), and the corresponding testing time points of patients in control group were the time of enrolment, 3 months follow-up. Patients in both groups were subjected to cardiac double-nuclide single photon emission CT (SPECT) examinations using 99Tcm-methoxyisobutylisonitrile (99Tcm- MIBI), 18F-fluro-deoxyglucose (18F-FDG) and microvolt T wave alternans (MTWA) examination, and their Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina grading, New York Heart Assosiation (NYHA) cardiac function grading, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scoring, nitroglycerin dosage, 6 min walk test (6MWT), Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated at the time ponits above. During of clinical follow-up was not less than 3 months, changes of mortality, myocardial re-infarction rate, readmission rate, myocardial perfusion, myocardial metabolism and cardiac function of pations in the two groups were compared. Results All 45 patients completed follow-up. After treatment of CSWT, the total score of myocardial perfusion imaging and myocardial metabolism imaging, NYHA cardiac function grading, CCS angina grading, nitroglycerin dosage, SAQ scoring, 6MWT, LVEF and MTWA of patients in shock wave therapy group at the time points of 3 months were all significantly improved when compared to those at the time point of 0 month (28.16±4.63 score vs 33.72±5.84 score, 22.88±3.17 score vs 28.28±4.89 score, 1.48±0.65 vs 2.16±0.69, 1.46±0.58 vs 2.72±0.46, 1.00±0.73 times/week vs 2.35±0.86 times/week, 76.40±8.65 score vs 65.96±11.78 score, 427.92±63.32 m vs 339.44±83.37 m, 56.16±6.38% vs 51.88±7.18%, 37.88±9.54 µV vs 44.80±12.24 µV, p all <0.05) and those in control group at the same time points (p all <0.05). But in control group, all the above parameters have no significant change compare with 0 month (p all>0.05). During follow-up, no death and myocardial re-infarction was found in shock wave therapy group after treatment. 1 patient died in control group because of SCD and 1 patient suffered from AMI. Eleven person-time suffered from readmission, 3 person-time of the shock wave therapy group, 11 person-time of the control group (p<0.05). Conclusions Extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy is a safe, non-invasive and effective therapeutic option for CAD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".