Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy Ameliorates Myocardial Ischemia in Patients With Chronic Refractory Angina Pectoris: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) is a non-invasive new option for the treatment of chronic refractory angina pectoris (CRAP). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of CSWT in the treatment of CRAP. Methods: Eighty-seven patients with CRAP were randomly allocated into CWST group (n = 46) and Control group (n = 41). Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grade of angina pectoris, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) score, 6-min walk test (6MWT), weekly dosage of nitroglycerin, and myocardial perfusion on D-SPECT were determined at baseline and during the follow-up period. Adverse events were also evaluated. Results: CSWT was well-tolerated in the CSWT patients. CSWT significantly improved the CCS grade, SAQ score, and 6MWT (p < 0.05). Imaging examinations showed that the ischemic area was reduced after CSWT. However, no significant changes were observed in the Control group. Conclusions: CSWT may improve the myocardial perfusion and reduce clinical symptoms without increasing adverse effects in CRAP patients. It provides a non-invasive and safe clinical therapy for CRAP patients. Clinical Trial registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT03398096.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".