The Impact Of EECP On Improving Exercise Capacity In Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Who Treated Medically Or Percutaneously Over One Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Enhanced External Counterpulsation (EECP) is a non-invasive therapy involving sequential inflation of external cuffs placed on the lower limbs in sync with the cardiac cycle. This method is primarily used to treat refractory angina (persistent for at least three months) in patients who do not respond to medical therapy, surgical intervention, or percutaneous coronary procedures. Methods: A total of 91 patients with refractory angina who were either unresponsive to medical therapy, ineligible for surgical intervention, or had undergone PCI without symptom relief were enrolled in the study. Patients were selected from the Al-Najaf Cardiac Center and private clinics between January 2018 and December 2019. All participants underwent coronary angiography, and those with significant three-vessel disease (>70% stenosis in each vessel) were included. Results: Over 12 months, 91 patients (32 women and 59 men) aged 45 to 80 years (mean 61 ± 8.2) were analyzed. Most patients completed an average of 26 EECP sessions (SD ± 7), with a response rate of 88.7%, as measured by symptom improvement based on Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification. No significant difference in response to EECP was observed between the PCI group and those treated with medical therapy alone (p = 0.87, p = 0.47). Additionally, sex (p = 0.185), smoking history (p = 0.67), hypertension (p = 0.4), diabetes (p = 0.12), and age (p = 0.26) did not significantly impact the response to EECP. Conclusion: EECP proved to be a safe and effective treatment for select patients with refractory angina who were unresponsive to conventional medical or surgical interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".