MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392594170 · doi:10.31083/j.rcm2503082

The Efficacy of Coronary Sinus Reducer in Patients with Refractory Angina: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4392594170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Panagiotis Theofilis, Panayotis K. Vlachakis, Μarios Sagris, Emmanouil Mantzouranis, Athanasios Sakalidis, Στέργιος Σουλαϊδόπουλος, Christos Chasikidis, Evangelos Oikonomou, Konstantinos Tsioufis, Dimitris Tousoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnginaFunnel plotInternal medicineMeta-analysisAdverse effectCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyCardiologyConfidence intervalPublication biasCoronary artery diseaseCoronary sinusMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.039
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207