Impact of intravenous administration of anisodamine on coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients with obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze intravenous administration of anisodamine’s impact on coronary microvasculardysfunction (CMD) in obstructive epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) patients who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods: Enrollment of 210 patients in Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University with CMD was done in a randomized-controlled study. They were divided randomly into groups, viz, anisodamine (A) group and nitrate (N) group. A 14-day course of treatment was carried out in each group. 99mTc-MIBI myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), treadmill exercise test (TET) and two dimensional echocardiography (TDE) were performed, and the symptoms of angina pectoris were recorded before and after treatment according to the classification, frequency, and duration of angina, as defined by Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS).Results: After treatment, summed stress score (SSS) and summed rest score (SRS) of MPI in group A significantly decreased after treatment (p < 0.001, respectively) and were remarkably lower than those in group N (p < 0.001, respectively). The CCS class in group A improved after treatment (p < 0.001) and was also better than in group N (p < 0.001). The frequency and duration of angina attack in group A significantly reduced after treatment (p < 0.001, respectively) and were notably lower than in group N (p < 0.001, respectively). Left ventricular ejection fraction in group A after treatment was higher than that before treatment (p = 0.046) and than that in group N (p = 0.048). Furthermore, the side effects of anisodamine were slight and tolerable.Conclusion: Intravenous administration of anisodamine is a potentially suitable optional treatment for CMD in patients with obstructive epicardial CAD who have undergone PCI.
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) | 0.001 | 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".