Clinical and prognostic effect of repeated ten-day courses of low-intensity laser exposure in patients with coronary heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deterioration in the prognosis of coronary heart disease (CHD) is due to the influence of numerous pathophysiological factors, which is almost impossible to handle with only medication. Positive results obtained after one course of laser therapy (LT) in patients with angina pectoris substantiate the possibility of prolonging the effect when using repeated courses of low-intensity laser exposure. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To assess the clinical and prognostic value of repeated courses of low-intensity LT in patients with CHD for 24 months. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved 40 men (mean age 56.6±8.2 years) with exertional angina pectoris with high (0-I functional class - 40%) and lower (II-III functional class - 60%) exercise tolerance (according to the classification of the Canadian Heart Association). Duration of the study was 24 months. All patients underwent 10-day courses of skin LT in the infrared radiation range every 6 months. Initially and after each course of LT, a bicycle ergometer test was performed with an assessment of the threshold values of blood pressure (BP), double product (DP=systolic BP×heart rate) and the ratio of DP to load power (DP/W). The blood levels of total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were studied after each course of LT. RESULTS: Patients had an improvement in their well-being during LT: a decrease in the number of angina attacks, the need for nitroglycerin, antianginal and antihypertensive drugs. A statistically significant increase in exercise tolerance by 33.2-40.1% was revealed since 1 month after each course of LT, according to the results of stress tests. At the same time, the threshold values of blood pressure remained at the initial level, which was regarded as a manifestation of the hypotensive effect. The decrease in the DP/W index by 18.2-29.6% compared with the initial data indicates the energy economization of cardiac activity. LT was accompanied by a statistically significant decrease in blood cholesterol from 6.15±1.26 to 4.84±1.28-5.25±1.53 mmol/l and LDL-C from 4.70±1.16 to 3, 29±1.26-3.96 mmol/l. CONCLUSION: Long-term clinical and preventive effect, good tolerability, availability, absence of side effects substantiate the possibility of widespread use of repeated courses of laser exposure in coronary heart disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".