MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

One-year results from the REDUCER-I multi-center real-world clinical trial of the treatment of refractory angina with the coronary sinus Reducer

2024· article· en· W4403806827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Verheye, Tim P. van de Hoef, R De Silva, J.P. van Kuijk, Jonathan Byrne, Matteo Montorfano, Eva Buschmann, Matthias Dupont, Shmuel Banai

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReducerAnginaCoronary sinusConventional PCIRefractory (planetary science)CardiologySurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Patients with refractory angina have chronic symptoms due to reversible ischemia which are inadequately controlled with optimal medical therapy or interventional treatments. These patients suffer from a poor quality of life and place a significant strain on the health care system due to their frequent rehospitalizations. The coronary sinus (CS) Reducer is a stainless-steel hour-glass shaped mesh stent that creates a focal narrowing in the lumen of the CS resulting in improved microvascular resistance and redistribution of myocardial blood flow. Purpose The COSIRA randomized controlled trial showed the Reducer is a safe and effective treatment for refractory angina with patients having significant improvements in Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class and other measures of quality of life. The REDUCER-I post-market study evaluated the long-term outcomes with the Reducer in a large and challenging ‘real-world’ cohort. Methods REDUCER-I is a multicenter, non-randomized study conducted across 26 medical centers in Europe. At one year, device effectiveness was assessed by improvement in CCS grade as compared to baseline and device safety was assessed by Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included six-minute walk tests, EQ-5D-5L tests, and Seattle Angina Questionnaires (SAQ). Subjects were followed at 30 days, 6 months, and annually through five years. Results The as-treated population includes a total of 371 patients who received a Reducer implant (78.7% (292/371) male, 47.2% (175/371) diabetic, 73.9% (274/371) post-revascularization). The one-year Kaplan-Meier overall MACE rate post-implant was 7.1% (95% CI [4.9, 10.4]). There were nine deaths within the first 365 days, one death was due to unknown causes and eight deaths were adjudicated to as not being device- or procedure-related. At 12 months, 70.0% (205/293) of patients improved by ≥1 CCS class. At baseline, 72.2% (232/363) of patients were CCS class III/IV and this proportion decreased to 18.1% (54/298) at 12 months (P<0.0001). The patients’ baseline six-minute walk distance was 327.5±116.1m which improved by a mean of 30.8±81.8m at 12 months (p<.0001). In the year prior to Reducer implant, 33.3% (88/264) of the patients had at least one visit to the emergency department compared to 11.7% (31/264) in the year after Reducer implant (p<.0001). The significant improvements in CCS class and SAQ-QoL were sustained through 3 years (Figure). Conclusion In this 12-month analysis of the REDUCER-I study, patients with refractory angina treated with the CS Reducer had low MACE rates and showed significant and sustained improvements in angina, QoL, functional capacity, and need for rehospitalization.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207