P4024Long term outcome of patients with chronic refractory angina treated by cardiac shockwave therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with chronic refractory angina pectoris (CRAP) without revascularization options experience continued symptoms despite maximal medical therapy. Cardiac shockwave therapy (CSWT) stimulates the zones of myocardial ischemia with acoustical energy and might improve symptoms and decrease ischemia burden by stimulating collateral growth in chronic ischemic myocardium. Short term effects of CSWT are promising but long-term effects are not known. Purpose: To assess the long term outcome of patients with CRAP treated by CSWT. Methods: Patients with CRAP and reversible ischemia on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy were treated with CSWT, applied to the ischemic zones (100 impulses/spot, 0.09 mJ/mm2) in an echocardiography-guided and ECG-triggered fashion. Results: 103 patients were treated with CSWT. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities and medication are shown in the table. During a mean follow-up of 4.58±0.21 year, 22 (21%) patients died. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 94±2% and 89±3% at 1 and 3 years, respectively (Figure). From the 81 surviving patients 37 visited the emergency room and 48 patients were hospitalized due to cardiac complaints, of which 24 patients underwent additional revascularization.
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) | 0.001 | 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".