Abstract 17136: Prospective Cohort Study for Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Mobile, Motorized Enhanced Extracorporeal Counterpulsation in Refractory Angina Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy is a potential treatment for refractory angina, which refers to persistent symptoms despite optimal treatment. However, the immobility, cost, and lack of individualized pressure control limit the accessibility and clinical implications of EECP. To address these limitations, a new Mobile, Motorized Enhanced Counterpulsation (MECP) device has been developed. Hypothesis: To investigate efficacy of MECP in improving in angina functional class and exercise tolerance in patients with refractory angina and to validate the consistency in outcomes observed with conventional EECP treatment. Methods: This prospective study enrolled patients with symptomatic refractory angina between September 2020 and December 2022 at two tertiary centers in Korea. Baseline and post-treatment assessments included measurements of angina scale, 6-minute walking test, cardiopulmonary exercise test, and central arterial pressure. Results: The study included 71 patients (70.4% male, median age 66 years). After the 10-hour MECP treatment session, 57.7% of patients showed improvement in angina scale based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society classification, with a significant distribution change from 76.8% to 49.3% in class II and from 21.7% to 5.7% in class III (p<0.001). Furthermore, patients demonstrated an increase of 20 meters in the 6-minute walk distance after MECP treatment (464 meters vs. 484 meters, p<0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the baseline characteristics of patients based on their response to MECP. Conclusion : Our study highlights the substantial benefits of MECP in relieving symptoms for patients with refractory angina and suggests its potential for broader clinical applications which merits further investigation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".