MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 15114: Enhanced External Counter Pulsation for Treatment of Angina With No Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease (ANOCA)

2023· article· en· W4389957570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Namrita Ashokprabhu, J Fox, Sachin Shah, Yulith Roca Alvarez, Christian Schmidt, Darlene Tierney, Lauren Thompson, Timothy D. Henry, Odayme Quesada

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyAnginaInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA) is associated with poor outcomes and limited treatment options. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a non-invasive treatment that involves applying external inflatable cuffs to the lower extremities to increase blood flow during diastole (diastolic augmentation and increased preload), followed by deflation during systole (decreased afterload). Although EECP is indicated in refractory angina patients, its effectiveness in treating refractory angina in ANOCA patients is relatively unknown and limited to small case series. Objective: Assess the efficacy of EECP treatment in ANOCA patients using Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and weekly anginal episodes. Methods: We examined ANOCA patients (defined as £50% stenosis in any major epicardial vessels) with CCS class 3 or 4 angina that completed EECP treatment at 2 large centers. CCS class, 6MWT, DASI, SAQ, and weekly anginal episodes were evaluated pre- and post- EECP treatment, as data was available. A paired Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar’s test were utilized as appropriate. Results: 65 ANOCA patients (63% female; 60±11 years) that completed 35±2 EECP sessions were included. Patients were on 4±2 cardiac medications pre-EECP (78% statin, 52% ACEI/ARB, 62% BBs, 34% CCBs, 48% nitrates, and 53% ranolazine). Post-EECP, 42 patients (65%) had an improvement of 3 1 CCS angina class with 16 (25%) improving by 3 2 classes. Significant improvements in CCS angina severity, 6MWT, DASI, SAQ, and weekly anginal episodes were evident post-EECP ( Table ). Conclusion: In ANOCA patients, EECP therapy reduces CCS angina class and improves exercise tolerance. EECP should be considered in ANOCA patients with refractory angina CCS class 3 or 4 as a part of optimal medical therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207