Exploring Functional Improvements by Sex in Six-Minute Walk Test, Exertional Angina, and Dyspnea After Enhanced External Counterpulsation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to explore functional improvements by sex for patients with refractory angina pectoris using a 6-min walk test (6MWT) after enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) therapy. METHODS: All patients who completed EECP from 2015 to 2023 were identified for analysis retrospectively, utilizing the electronic medical record. Patients completed 35 1-hr EECP sessions 5 d/wk over 7 wk. All baseline and post-EECP intervention 6MWT, exertional angina, and dyspnea measurements were assessed on the first and last sessions, respectively. Paired and unpaired t tests and linear and stepwise multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 116 patients (24 female) with a mean age of 69 ± 13 yr. After EECP, there was a mean improvement of 128 m (72%) in distance walked during the 6MWT ( P < .001) with 126 ± 91 m improvement in males and 134 ± 73 m in females. The improvement in angina and dyspnea scores was 3.5 ± 2.1 and 4.2 ± 2.4, respectively. There were no differences between the sexes for improvements in 6MWT distance, angina, or dyspnea. Univariate associations for change in 6MWT distance included body mass index (BMI; adjusted R2 = .05) and being a nonsmoker (adjusted R2 = .03). The only independent predictor for increasing distance during 6MWT was BMI (adjusted R2 = .1; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Patients who have refractory angina pectoris can improve their functional capacity while simultaneously decreasing exertional angina and dyspnea using EECP. This study highlights the equal efficacy of EECP therapy for females.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".