Cardiac shock wave therapy improves myocardial perfusion and preserves left ventricular mechanics in patients with refractory angina: A study with speckle tracking echocardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac shockwave therapy (CSWT) is a new potential option for the treatment of patients with chronic coronary disease and refractory angina (RA). We aimed to study the effects of CSWT on left ventricular myocardial perfusion and mechanics in patients with RA. METHOD: We prospectively studied 19 patients who underwent CSWT. Left ventricular mechanics were evaluated by speckle tracking echocardiography (STE), and myocardial perfusion by single-photon emission computed tomography, using stress/rest-Technetium-99 m Sestamibi, for determination of summed stress score (SSS). Canadian Cardiac Society (CCS), New York Heart Association (NYHA), and quality of life by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) were assessed at baseline and 6 months after therapy. RESULTS: CSWT therapy was applied without major side effects. At baseline, 18 patients (94.7%) had CCS class III or IV, and after CSWT there was reduction to 3 (15.8%), P = .0001, associated with improvement in SAQ (38.5%; P < .001). Thirteen (68.4%) had class NYHA III or IV before treatment, with significant reduction to 7 (36.8%); P = .014. No change was observed in the global SSS from baseline to 6-month follow-up (15.33 ± 8.60 vs 16.60 ± 8.06; P = .157). However, there was a significant reduction in the average SSS of the treated ischemic segments (2.1 ± 0.87 pre vs 1.6 ± 1.19 post CSWT; P = .024). Global longitudinal strain by STE remained unaltered (-13.03 ± 8.96 pre vs -15.88 ± 3.43 6-month post CSWT; P = .256). CONCLUSION: CSWT is a safe procedure for the treatment of patients with RA that results in better quality of life, improvement in myocardial perfusion of the treated segments with preservation of left ventricular mechanics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".