Efficacy of coronary sinus reducer implantation in patients with chronic total occlusion of the right coronary artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical efficacy of coronary sinus reducer (CSR) in refractory angina (RA) patients with ischemia due to the chronic total occlusion (CTO) of the right coronary artery (RCA) remains unknown. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of CSR implantation in RA patients with CTO RCA and compare them to CSR recipients with left coronary artery (LCA) ischemia. METHODS: Consecutive patients with CTO RCA from 2 centers were prospectively included and compared to patients with LCA ischemia. All patients underwent evaluation of angina severity and quality of life (QoL) at baseline and after 12 months. In a subgroup of CTO RCA patients, stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was also performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with CTO RCA and predominant inferior and/or inferoseptal wall ischemia (the CTO RCA group) were compared to 24 patients with predominant anterior, lateral, and/or anteroseptal wall ischemia (the LCA group). While the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) anginascore mean (SD) improved in the CTO RCA group from 2.73 (0.46) to 1.82 (0.73) (P <0.001) and in the LCA group from 2.67 (0.57) to 1.92 (0.72) (P <0.001), there was no intergroup difference (P = 0.350). Significant improvement in all domains of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire was observed. Stress CMR did not show a significant reduction of ischemic inferior and/or inferoseptal segments, however, improvements in the transmurality index (P = 0.03) and the myocardial perfusion reserve index in segments with inducible ischemia (P = 0.03) were observed in the CTO RCA group. CONCLUSIONS: In CTO RCA patients, CSR implantation alleviated angina symptoms and improved QoL. The extent of improvement was comparable to that observed in patients with LCA ischemia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".