Novel Concepts in the Management of Angina in Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronary artery disease remains a condition with high prevalence and detrimental effects on the quality of life of affected individuals. Its most frequent manifestation, stable angina pectoris, may be challenging to manage despite the available antianginal pharmacotherapy and adequate risk factor control, especially in subjects not amenable to revascularization. In the direction of refractory angina pectoris, several approaches have been developed over the years with varying degrees of success. Among the most recognized techniques in managing angina is enhanced external counterpulsation, which utilizes mechanical compression of the lower extremities to increase blood flow to the heart. Moving to coronary sinus reduction, it leads to an increase in coronary sinus backward pressure, ultimately augmenting myocardial blood flow redistribution to ischemic regions and ameliorating chronic angina. Clinical trial results of the above-mentioned techniques have been encouraging but are based on small sample sizes to justify their widespread application. Other interventional approaches, such as transmyocardial laser revascularization, extracorporeal shockwave myocardial revascularization, and spinal cord stimulation, have been met with either controversial or negative results, and their use is not recommended. Lastly, angiogenic therapy with targeted intramyocardial vascular endothelial growth factor injection or CD34+ cell therapy may be beneficial and warrants further investigation. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge in the field of angina management, highlighting the potential and the gaps in the existing evidence that ought to be addressed in future larger-scale, randomized studies before these techniques can be safely adapted in the clinical practice of patients with refractory angina pectoris.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".