Coronary Sinus Reducer implantation improves symptoms, ischaemia and physical capacity in patients with refractory angina unsuitable for myocardial revascularisation: a single-centre experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Coronary Sinus Reducer implantation in alleviating angina symptoms and improving objective ischaemia parameters and indices of physical capacity. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with refractory angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society [CCS] class 3-4) were treated with the Reducer. Baseline and follow-up evaluation consisted of clinical assessment including completion of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and CCS class evaluation, and objective assessment by treadmill exercise test, dobutamine echocardiography and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Overall, 48 patients (40 male) were enrolled. No periprocedural or long-term adverse events were recorded. CCS class diminished from a mean of 3.4±0.5 at baseline to 2.0±1 (p<0.001), and all domains of the SAQ improved significantly following Reducer implantation. Mean exercise duration increased from 03:43±01:30 to 04:36±02:18 min:sec (p=0.025) and 6MWT distance increased from 299.9±97.9 m to 352.9±75.3 m (p=0.002). Ejection fraction (EF%) at stress increased from 51.0±10 to 56.5±10 (p=0.004), and wall motion score index improved from 1.58±0.4 to 1.37±0.3 (p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Reducer implantation for the treatment of refractory angina is a simple and safe procedure which significantly alleviates symptoms of angina and improves objective ischaemia parameters and indices of physical function.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".