The efficacy of coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina—A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of coronary sinus (CS) reducer device in patients with refractory angina. BACKGROUND: The CS reducer device provides a therapeutic option for patients with coronary artery disease who are not suitable for revascularization. METHODS: Two independent investigators (GB and GT) systematically searched the Medline and Cochrane library databases for studies describing the efficacy and safety of the CS reducer in patients with refractory angina from January 1, 2000 until May 12, 2018 using the following terms: "coronary sinus (reducer OR reducing) device." Efficacy was defined as ≥1 unit improvement in the Canadian cardiovascular society (CCS) score. RESULTS: Our search strategy provided six studies (five observational studies and one randomized clinical trial) with 196 patients. The CS reducer device was effective in 146/186 (78.5%) patients. CCS score improved from 3.2 at baseline to 1.9 after 8.6 months of follow-up. The efficacy of CS reducer device was also demonstrated as an improvement in Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, dobutamine echocardiography, thalium single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion studies, 6-min-walk test and myocardial perfusion reserve index. Implantation failed in 4 of 196 (2%) patients and 5 patients (2.5%) had a complication during 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The CS reducer is a promising treatment option for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization. However, larger randomized control trials with long-term follow-up are needed to elucidate its role.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".