Ranolazine Versus Allopurinol for Eligible Symptomatic Patients With a History of Angioplasty: Comparative Efficacy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent angina, which is defined as a return of chest pain or chest discomfort, occurs in many patients undergoing coronary interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the antianginal efficacy of ranolazine versus allopurinol for eligible symptomatic patients with a history of angioplasty. METHODS: A total of 62 eligible symptomatic patients with a history of angioplasty were randomly allocated into two groups. For group A, 300 mg of allopurinol was administered twice daily, while for group B, 1000 mg of ranolazine daily was prescribed for a duration of 4 weeks. An initial screening visit was done for all participants where patients' medical history was recorded and a physical examination was given; electrocardiography, blood pressure, and heart rate measurements were done as well. The patients were also given a blood and exercise test. At the end of the medication period, participants were revisited, and the tests were done again. All the required data were collected via a researcher-made form, and data analysis was conducted using SPSS. The study was approved by a formal ethics committee. RESULTS: The mean age of participants in the two groups (A and B) was 57.36 (SD 8.36) and 60.27 (SD 9.17) years, respectively. Among the 62 patients, 34 (59%) were men, while 28 (41%) were women. Creatinine, fasting blood sugar, C-reactive protein, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic protein, uric acid, white blood cell, and hemoglobin levels of participants were not significantly different between groups (P>.05). Both allopurinol and ranolazine increased the total exercise time and decreased the ST depression of the patients. Additionally, they both improved the chest pain severity and Duke Treadmill Score of patients. At the same time, ranolazine had a statistically greater effect on ST depression reduction (mean 2.64, SD 0.74 vs mean 1.57, SD 0.49), while allopurinol showed better efficacy in reducing chest pain severity (mean 1.86, SD 0.37 vs mean 0.59, SD 0.21) and the Duke Treadmill Score (mean -14.77, SD 3.65 vs mean -6.88, SD 1.93). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, the antianginal efficacy of allopurinol and ranolazine was approved but with different effects on ST depression, chest pain severity, and the Duke Treadmill Score. Therefore, the precise differences in their effects need to be explored further.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".