Coronary sinus reducer device for the treatment of refractory angina therapy. A multicentric initial experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The coronary sinus Reducer device (CSRD) emerged as a complementary therapy in patients with severe angina refractory to optimal medical therapy and not amenable to revascularization. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of the CSRD in a real-world setting. Methods Twenty-six patients with refractory angina (RA), evidence of myocardial ischemia attributable to the left coronary artery unsuitable for revascularization were treated with the CSRD at two centres between May 2017 and July 2019. Safety endpoints were procedural success and complications. Efficacy endpoints, assessed at 6-month follow-up, were a reduction in CCS class, improvement in quality of life (QoL) assessed using the short version of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7) and reduction in anti-anginal therapy. Results Twenty-three patients had end-stage CAD without revascularization targets and 3 patients had microvascular disease without epicardial stenosis. Procedural success was achieved 23 patients, with 2 device/procedural-related complications and one anatomically-related failure to deliver the device. Ultimately 25 patients implanted the device and entered the efficacy analysis. Eighteen patients (75.0%) had at least 1 reduction in CCS class, 41.7% had at least 2 class reductions, and 16.7% became asymptomatic, with a mean reduction of CCS class of 1.3±0.2 (p=0.001) at 6-month follow-up. All SAQ-7 domains improved, namely physical limitation (p=0.001), angina frequency (p=0.005) and QoL (p=0.006). There was a mean reduction of anti-ischemic drugs from 3.4±1.1 to 2.9±1.2 (p=0.010). Conclusion In this real-world, multicentric experience, implantation of the CSRD was associated with improvement of angina and QoL in patients with RA. 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".