[Extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy for treatment of coronary artery disease].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) for treatment of coronary artery disease. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with 1 - 16 years history of chronic angina pectoris underwent the CSWT. Before and after the treatment, low-dose Dobutamine stress echocardiography and (99)Tc(m)-MIBI myocardial perfusion SPECT were applied to locate the ischemic segments, detect the viable myocardium and evaluate the effect of CSWT. Under the guidance of echocardiography, CSWT was applied in R-wave-triggered manner with low energy (0.09 mJ/mm(2)) at 200 shoots/spot for 9 spots (-1-0-+1 combination). Patients were divided group A and group B. Sixteen patients in group A were applied 9 sessions on 29 segments within 3 month and nine patients in group B were applied 9 sessions on 13 segments within 1 month. Ten chronic angina pectoris patients receiving standard medication served as controls. RESULTS: All patients completed the 9 sessions without procedural complications or adverse effects. CSWT significantly improved symptoms as evaluated by NYHA, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class sores, Seattle angina questionnaire (SAQ), 6-min walk and the use of nitroglycerin (P < 0.05). CSWT also improved myocardial perfusion and regional myocardium function as evaluated by rest SPECT and stress peak systolic strain rate (PSSR) (P < 0.01). Myocardial perfusion improvement was more significant in group A compared with group B (1.21 ± 0.86 vs. 0.83 ± 0.80, P < 0.01). All parameters remained unchanged in control group during follow up. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results indicate that CSWT is safe and effective on ameliorating anginal symptoms for chronic angina pectoris 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".