Extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy in treatment of patients with refractory coronary artery disease:efficacy and safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy(CSWT) in treatment of patients with refractory coronary artery disease(RCAD).Methods A total of 28 cases/times of confirmed RCAD patients(22 males and 6 females,mean age of [68.2±12.0] years) received CSWT(100 shots/spot at 0.09 mJ/mm2 for 3—6 spots,3 times a week/series);the treatment was given every 3 weeks for 9 weeks.The Canadian Cardiovascular Society functional class score(CCS),Seattle angina questionnaire score(SAQ),myocardial perfusion imaging(MPI),left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF),6-minute walking test,echocardiogram,blood routine,urine routine and myocardial injury markers were all observed before and after treatment.Results Twenty-seven patients completed the treatment,and 17 were followed up for 6 months.The CCS class and New York Heart Association(NYHA) class before CSWT and 6 months after treatment showed that CCS class decreased from 2.5±0.5 to 2.0±0.0(P0.01) and NYHA class decreased from 2.0±0.7 to 1.8±0.6(P=0.03).Single-photon emission computed tomograph(SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging revealed an increase in perfusion in treated myocardial segments and decrease in untreated segments.In addition,it demonstrated that after 6 months treatment the left ventricular end-diastolic volume(LVEDV) decreased from(172.11±102.01) mL to(157.67±91.38) mL(P0.05),left ventricular end-systolic volume(LVESV) decreased from(114.56±99.37) mL to(99.44±86.44) mL(P0.05),and LVEF increased from 0.422±0.188 to 0.459±0.205(P0.05).No cardiac arrhythmia or angina pectoris was noticed during treatment.Conclusion CSWT is a safe and feasible choice for patients with end-stage coronary artery disease,diffuse vascular lesions,and those who are not suitable for traditional myocardial revascularization treatment.(Shanghai Med J,2009,32: 872-875)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".