Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Prescription in Symptomatic Patients with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease—a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Non-obstructive coronary artery disease (NOCAD) on coronary angiography is a common finding in patients with stable angina. Angina in NOCAD patients is thought to be caused by endothelial dysfunction of the epicardial coronary arteries and/or the microvasculature. Treatment is empiric, and 30% of patients remain symptomatic in spite of therapy. It is well known that physical exercise can improve endothelial function. The goal of this review was to assess the current literature on effects of physical exercise in NOCAD patients with angina. Therefore, a literature search was conducted to March 13, 2018 using the following search terms: syndrome X, microvascular angina, non-obstructive coronary artery disease and exercise training, cardiac rehabilitation, endothelial function. All original publications were included which examined the effect of a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program or exercise training (ET) on patients with angina and NOCAD. RECENT FINDINGS: Eight studies, of which four were randomized controlled studies, examined 218 participants, 162 in an intervention and 56 in control groups. Most patients were women (97.7%). Exercise programs varied from 8 weeks to 4 months at moderate intensity and some included relaxation therapy. The studies examined the effect of CR on exercise capacity, quality of life (QoL), and perfusion defects. CR increased exercise capacity, oxygen uptake, symptom severity, and QoL. Myocardial perfusion improved. CR appears to be beneficial in symptomatic patients with NOCAD, improving exercise capacity and QoL and reducing severity of symptoms and myocardial perfusion defects. Data is limited to a small number of predominantly female patients. Further larger trials are warranted to determine the optimal rehabilitation protocols and define its long-term benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".