Evaluating the Efficacy of Coronary Sinus Reducer Implantation in the Management of Refractory Angina: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronary sinus reducer (CSR), a minimally invasive device, has emerged as a promising alternative for improving myocardial perfusion in these patients. This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of CSR implantation in patients with refractory angina. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases identified 10 relevant studies with a pooled sample size of 799 patients. The analysis focused on changes in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification score, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) score, and six-minute walk distance (6MWD) from baseline to follow-up. Results showed significant improvements across all measured outcomes. CCS scores decreased significantly post-CSR implantation, indicating reduced angina severity. SAQ scores improved across all domains, including physical limitation, anginal stability, anginal frequency, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life, suggesting enhanced overall well-being. The 6MWD also increased significantly, reflecting improved functional capacity. These findings highlight CSR's potential as an effective treatment option for patients with refractory angina who have exhausted traditional therapies. CSR implantation appears to alleviate angina symptoms, improve quality of life, and enhance exercise tolerance. Future research should prioritize larger, multi-center randomized controlled trials to validate these findings. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to assess sustained benefits and potential risks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".