The Efficacy of Coronary Sinus Reducer in Patients with Refractory Angina: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Refractory angina is a frequently encountered phenomenon in patients with coronary artery disease, often presenting therapeutic challenges to the clinical cardiologist. Novel treatment methods have been explored in this direction, with the coronary sinus reducer (CSR) being among the most extensively-investigated. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature for studies assessing the efficacy of CSR in patients with refractory angina. The primary endpoints of interest were procedural success and the improvement in angina according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) by at least one class. Secondary endpoints were the rate of periprocedural adverse events, the improvement by at least 2 CCS classes, and the mean change in CCS class. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions (procedural success, improvement by ≥1 or ≥2 classes, periprocedural adverse events) or means (mean CCS class change) were performed. I2 was chosen as the metric for between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by the inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. We examined the risk of bias according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: From a total of 515 studies identified from the original search, 12 studies were finally included for data extraction. Based on their meta-analysis, we observed a high CSR procedural success (98%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 96 to 99%) with a low rate of periprocedural complications (6%, 95% CI 5 to 7%), while most patients exhibited an improvement by at least 1 CCS class (75%, 95% CI 66 to 83%) after the intervention. A significant proportion of patients demonstrated an improvement by at least 2 CCS classes (39%, 95% CI 34 to 45%), with a mean change of –1.24 CCS class (95% CI –1.40 to –1.08). Conclusions: CSR is associated with high implantation success rates and significant improvements in angina symptoms for patients with refractory angina.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".