Venous Return Assist Devices for Intermittent Claudication: A Randomized Controlled Trial Utilizing a Sham Comparator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine whether an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave) effects walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication as compared to placebo, as well as to review the published literature on the topic. Design: Randomized, cross-over, blinded trial of an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave), compared with a sham compression device. Setting: Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada. Participants: 27 patients with severe peripheral limb ischemia, as identified by at least one of: i) ABI<0.4; ii) ACD<200 m (Fontaine stage IIb); iii) toe-brachial index<0.5; or iv) toe pressure<40 mmHg or rest pain due to arterial ischemia. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was Absolute Claudication Distance (ACD) while walking on a treadmill. Secondary outcome measures included Initial Claudication Distance (ICD), walk time measured in minutes, and a modified version of the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ). Results: There was no significant difference in ACD (mean difference: 14.1 m; 95% CI: -31.6 m-59.9 m; p=0.53) or ICD (mean difference: 5.9 m; 95% CI: -26.3 m-14.5 m; p=0.55) between active and sham devices. Mean walk time was identical between active and sham devices (5.6 minutes (2.1) vs. 5.6 minutes (2.0); p=0.99). The modified WIQ score was higher in the active group compared with the sham group (mean difference 2.1 m; 95% CI: 0.3 m-3.9 m; p=0.03). Conclusion: In patients with moderate to severe intermittent claudication, the Venowave device did not increase walking distance when used immediately prior to and during measured effort. This is the first study to use a sham device as a comparator in this specific context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".