Impact of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programme versus coronary revascularisation in patients with stable angina pectoris: study protocol for the PRO-FIT randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, in the majority of patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP) treatment consists of optimal medical treatment, potentially followed by coronary angiography and subsequent coronary revascularisation if necessary". Recent work questioned the effectiveness of these invasive procedures in reducing re-events and improving prognosis. The potential of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease is well-known. However, in the modern era, no studies compared the effects of cardiac rehabilitation versus coronary revascularisation in patients with SAP. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, 216 patients with stable angina pectoris and residual anginal complaints under optimal medical treatment will be randomised to: 1) usual care (i.e., coronary revascularisation), or 2) a 12-month cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme. CR consists of a multidisciplinary intervention, including education, exercise training, lifestyle coaching and a dietary intervention with a stepped decline in supervision. The primary outcome will be anginal complaints (Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7) following the 12-month intervention. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, ischemic threshold during exercise, cardiovascular events, exercise capacity, quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. DISCUSSION: In this study, we will examine the hypothesis that multidisciplinary CR is at least equally effective in reducing anginal complaints as the contemporary invasive approach at 12-months follow-up for patients with SAP. If proven successful, this study will have significant impact on the treatment of patients with SAP as multidisciplinary CR is a less invasive and potentially less costly and better sustainable treatment than coronary revascularisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL9537. Registered 14 June 2021.
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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.011 |
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".