Coronary sinus narrowing for the treatment of refractory angina: a multicentre prospective open-label clinical study (the REDUCER-I study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The REDUCER-I study is a prospective (with a retrospective component), open-label, multi-centre, international, post-market study, which collects long-term data of patients with refractory angina treated with the Reducer. Here we present the overall clinical outcomes of the first 228 patients enrolled. AIMS: The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus (CS) Reducer in improving angina severity and quality of life in patients suffering from angina pectoris, refractory to medical and interventional therapies. METHODS: REDUCER-I is a multicentre, non-randomised observational study. Enrolled patients had refractory angina pectoris Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class II-IV and were treated with Reducer implantation. RESULTS: In the first 228 patients (81% male, 68.3±9.6 years), the procedural success rate was 99%, with only one adjudicated possible procedural or device-related MACE. Mean CCS class decreased from 2.8±0.6 at baseline, to 1.8±0.7 at two years. Improvement in ≥1 CCS class was observed in 82%, and in ≥2 CCS classes in 31% of patients at two years. At baseline, 70% of the cohort were reported to be in CCS class III-IV; this portion was reduced to 15% at follow-up. Additional measured parameters of functional class and quality of life were also improved. CONCLUSIONS: Interim results from the ongoing REDUCER-I study confirm the high safety profile of this therapy in patients suffering from refractory angina. The results also demonstrate sustained improvement in angina severity and in quality of life up to two years.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".