Efficacy and safety of coronary sinus reducer for refractory angina: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refractory angina affects patients' quality of life around the world. Coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is a new therapeutic approach that has been investigated in recent years. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSR for refractory angina. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL searches until May 2024. Dichotomous data were pooled using risk ratio (RR), and continuous data were pooled using mean difference (MD), both with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using (R version 4.3). With the inclusion of three RCTs, our cohort comprised a total of 180 patients. Compared with the control group, after 6 months, CSR was significantly associated with a decreased mean change of Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class [MD: -0.54 with 95% CI (-0.80 to -0.27), P < 0.01], a decreased number of patients in the CCS class III/IV [RR: 0.56 with 95% CI (0.38-0.84), P < 0.01], and increased exercise time [MD: 50.46 with 95% CI (9.47-91.45), P = 0.02]. However, there was no significant difference between CSR and the control group in double products, all Seattle Angina Questionnaire domains, and safety outcomes. CSR has been shown to reduce angina severity by lowering CCS class scores and increasing exercise time. Large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm its effectiveness in 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".