The impact of the coronary sinus reducer upon left ventricular function in patients with refractory angina pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To evaluate the impact of coronary sinus (CS) Reducer implantation upon left ventricular (LV) function. Background CS Reducer implantation is associated with symptomatic relief in patients with refractory angina. The effects of the device upon left ventricular function remains unknown. Methods Prior to device implantation and at 4‐months, resting ventricular volumes and function were measured using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Stress CMR was performed to extract quantitative indices of myocardial perfusion (myocardial perfusion reserve index‐MPRI). Results Nineteen patients (18 males, 66.0 [IQR 56.0–77.0] years), underwent successful Reducer implantation. Sixteen (84%) patients improved by at least 1 CCS class. Four months after Reducer implantation, we noticed a significant improvement in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (61 [IQR 47–71] to 66 [IQR 57–72] %; p = .009), a reduction in LV end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV)/Body surface area (BSA) (65.7 [IQR 57.4–89.6] to 64.7 [IQR 53.7–74.1] mL/m 2 ; p = .036) and a reduction in LV end‐systolic volume (LVESV)/BSA (28.7 [IQR 18.6–38.8] to 20.0 [IQR 15.0–31.4] mL/m 2 ; p = .007). Patients with reduced EF (EF < 50%, n = 6) presented a greater increase of EF at follow up compared to patients with preserved EF (11.3 [IQR 6.5–54.5] vs. 3.8 [IQR 0.6–9.1] %; p = .029). The observed decrease in LVESV/BSA was greater in patients with reduced EF (23.6 [IQR 11.6–33.8] vs. 4.2 [IQR −2.0 to 8.4] mL/m 2 ; p = .005). A significant increase in transmural MPRI was observed 4 months after Reducer implantation ( p < .011). Conclusions CS Reducer improved angina symptoms and improved left ventricular function. The improvement was pronounced in the subgroup of patients with reduced ejection fraction. Myocardial perfusion improvement could represent the underlying mechanism for the observed 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".