Real world experience with coronary sinus reducer implantation for the treatment of refractory angina: a single-centre experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Coronary sinus Reducer device (CSF) implantation is a novel therapeutic option to relieve symptoms in patients with refractory angina (RA). There is limited real-world data describing its use outside of clinical trials. Aim To assess the safety and efficacy of this procedure in a real-world setting. Methods This is a report of a single centre prospective registry of consecutive patients with RA (CCS II-IV) deemed unsuitable for revascularization. Between May 2017 and August 2019, 17 patients were referred to CSF implantation. Baseline and follow-up evaluation consisted of clinical assessment, including completion of the short version of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7) and CCS class evaluation and objective evaluation by transthoracic echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). Results A total of 13 patients (70,6±6,5 years, 76,9% male) underwent CSF implantation with a procedural success of 84.6%. No cases of periprocedural serious adverse events were reported. At 12-month follow-up, any reduction in CCS Class was achieved in 72.7% of cases, with 27.2% reducing 2 CCS classes. Baseline CCS score was reduced from 2.8±0.4 to 1.7±0.8 (p=0.009). Quality of life (QoL) was significantly improved as assessed by the improvement seen in all items of SAQ-7 (p<0.017 for all). CPET duration was significantly increased (p=0.034), but no change was noted in the remainder CPET variables. During follow-up, 3 patients suffered myocardial infarction, resulting in 1 death. Conclusion CSF implantation in patients with RA was safe and led to a significant reduction of the angina burden and improvement of QoL at 12-month follow-up. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".