P.149 Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Refractory angina is defined as a chronic condition characterized by the presence of angina due to coronary insufficiency which cannot be controlled by a combination of medical therapy, angioplasty and coronary bypass surgery. Prevalence in the United States is estimated to be between 300,000-900,000. Spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina pain relief was first described in 1987 but is still not widely used in North America. We report our experience with this treatment. Methods: A retrospective review of patients referred to the St Pauls Hospital neuromodulation program for consideration of SCS for refractory angina was conducted. Patients underwent implantation using a either a two stage approach (percutaneous or permanent lead trial followed by full system implantation) or full system implantation. Results: Bewtween 2004-2020 36 patients underwent full system implantation (2 patients failed the trial and were not implanted). Of the 36 patients undergoing full system implantation, 33 (92%) experienced significant reduction of angina, increased exercise tolerance and/or medication reduction and were considered successful implantation. Most common lead placement location was at C7 T1. Conclusions: Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for patients suffering from crippling angina pain despite medical optimization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.035 | 0.011 |
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".