Efficacy of Enhanced External Counterpulsation in Patients With Chronic Refractory Angina on Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Angina Class
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of patients with chronic artery disease suffer from angina, despite the optimal medical management (ie, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and long-acting nitrates) and revascularization. Currently, enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy has been verified as a noninvasive, safe therapy for refractory angina. The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of EECP in patients with chronic refractory angina according to Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class.We identified systematic literature through MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register Database, and the ClinicalTrials. gov Website from 1990 to 2015. Studies were considered eligible if they were prospective and reported data on CCS class before and after EECP treatment. Meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of EECP therapy by at least 1 CCS angina class improvement, and proportion along with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated by I statistic and the Q statistic. Sensitivity analysis was addressed to test the influence of trials on the overall pooled results. Subgroup analysis was applied to explore potential reasons for heterogeneity.Eighteen studies were enrolled in our meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed 85% of patients underwent EECP had a reduction by at least one CCS class (95%CI 0.81-0.88, I = 58.5%, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients enrolled at primarily different studies with chronic heart failure (CHF) improved by at least 1 CCS class was about 84% after EECP (95%CI 0.81-0.88, I = 32.7%, P = 0.1668). After 3 large studies were excluded, the pooled proportion was 82% (95%CI 0.79-0.86, I = 18%, P = 0.2528). Funnel plot indicated that some asymmetry while the Begg and Egger bias statistic showed no publication bias (P = 0.1495 and 0.2859, respectively).Our study confirmed that EECP provided an effective treatment for patients who were unresponsive to medical management and/or invasive therapy. However, the long-term benefits of EECP therapy needed further studies to evaluate in the management of chronic refractory angina.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".