Ranolazine for Symptomatic Management of Microvascular Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ranolazine is approved in the United States and Europe for chronic stable angina. Microvascular angina (MVA) is defined as angina with no obstructive coronary artery disease. STUDY QUESTION: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of ranolazine at improving angina scores and quality of life in a Canadian cohort with severe refractory angina due to MVA. STUDY DESIGN: We administered questionnaires to 31 patients at baseline and after at least 6 weeks of ranolazine treatment. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Validated, clinically significant changes for each Seattle Angina Questionnaire domain and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form were obtained from the literature. Score changes between baseline and postranolazine use were analyzed using sign test. RESULTS: Patients were mostly female (27 of 31 patients) with a median age of 57 years. After initiation of ranolazine treatment, patients experienced improvements in Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form scores (80.6%; P < 0.01) and in 3 of the 4 domains of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (physical limitation: 73.3%; P = 0.02; treatment satisfaction: 80.6%; P < 0.01; and disease perception: 77.4%; P < 0.01). Patients were less likely to have interactions with the health care system after ranolazine treatment as compared with before (35.5% vs. 93.5%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ranolazine significantly improves symptom control and quality of life in patients with MVA and severe refractory angina and reduces their interaction with the health care system. Given the potentially debilitating effect of chronic angina in MVA, ranolazine may be an effective treatment option.
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) | 0.002 | 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".