[Epidural spinal cord stimulation in chronic refractory angina pectoris].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic refractory angina pectoris is defined as a condition with coronary insufficiency that cannot be controlled by a combination of medical therapy, angioplasty or bypass surgery. Different treatment options are evaluated in this patient group; spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is the one that is best documented. We have used this method since 1996 and present our experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1996 to 2001, spinal cord stimulators were implanted in 21 patients. A follow-up study was performed after 27 months (range 7-71) with a questionnaire. Preoperative clinical and angiographic data were retrieved from our records. RESULTS: 17 men and 4 women aged 55-88 years (median 73) were treated with SCS. Preoperatively all patients were in CCS (Canadian Cardiovascular Society) class III-IV. 81% had previously undergone coronary artery bypass surgery. At follow up, 81% were alive. Lead fracture occurred in two patients, displacement of the electrode in one. There were no other complications. 71% reported symptomatic improvement, mean CCS class was reduced from 3.5 prior to SCS to 2.2 at follow up, and use of nitroglycerin was reduced. INTERPRETATION: In chronic refractory angina pectoris, spinal cord stimulation is an alternative. We report "beginners' experience" that is positive including substantial symptomatic effect and a low complication rate. More hospitals in Norway should consider establishing SCS in order to offer this treatment option to a growing patient group.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".