[Efficacy of shock-wave therapy in the treatment of chronic ischemic heart failure].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Shock-wave therapy (SWT) has proved its efficacy and safety in a number of studies in stable effort angina. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (20 men, 4 women; mean age 63.3 +/- 6.1 years) with chronic heart failure (CHF) of ischemic origin (>6 months after AMI) and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) <40% received SWT in addition to their stable treatment. SWT was performed in 9 sessions with 100 shocks per spot in viable segments detected by low dose dobutamine stress echocardiography. Patients were examined at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after SWT. Troponin T level was measured after each week of treatment. RESULTS: Class of CHF significantly decrease from 2.2 +/- 0.8 to 1.7 +/- 0.7 at 3 and at 6 months after SWT (p<0.01). Six-minute walk test improved from 414 +/- 141 to 509 +/- 141 and 538 +/- 116 m (p<0.01) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Significant augmentation of LVEF at rest was noted at 3 and 6 months after SWT (from 32.2 +/- 6.0 to 34.8 +/- 9.6 and 37.7 +/- 9.5, respectively p=0.03). Troponin T was negative in all cases. Significant increase of LV longitudinal deformation was registered at 6 months (from -8.84 +/- 0.38 to -9.72 +/- -0.44%, p<0.01) what evidenced for improvement of LV contractility. The latter was a result of restored hibernating segments function (longitudinal deformation of these segments rose from initial -7.52 +/- -0.5 to -9.18 +/- 0.53 and -9.63 +/- 0.59% at 3 and 6 months after SWT, respectively, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CHF SWT caused significant clinical improvement as well as increases in LV EF and distance walked during 6-min walk test. These results justify conduct of a placebo controlled study.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".