Clinical Outcomes of Cardiac Shockwave Therapy in Severe Coronary Artery Disease Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac shockwave therapy (CSWT) is a noninvasive treatment for patients with refractory angina or myocardial ischemia. This study aims to evaluate the potential beneficial effect and safety of CSWT in patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) who have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).This was a single-arm prospective cohort study. A total of 30 patients with severe CAD who were not suitable for coronary revascularization and who had undergone CABG were enrolled. All patients received CSWT for nine sessions. Evaluation was performed before and after CSWT, including the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) score, nitroglycerin dosage, echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), and safety parameters. All patients were followed up at both 1 month and 9 months after CSWT.After treatment, CSWT significantly improved CCS classification (P < 0.05), NYHA classification (P < 0.05), nitroglycerin dosage (P < 0.001), and 6MWT (P < 0.05) at 1 month and 9 months after CSWT. SAQ score (P < 0.05) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; P = 0.037) by echocardiography significantly improved at 1 month after CSWT. Significant decreases in summed stress score (SSS), summed difference score (SDS), ischemic area stress, and ischemic area difference by MPI were observed at 1 month and 9 months after CSWT (P < 0.01). There were no changes in safety parameters before and after CSWT.CSWT may have a beneficial effect on improving myocardial perfusion, clinical symptoms, exertional capacity, and quality of life and is a safe alternative treatment for patients with severe CAD who have undergone CABG.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".