Effectiveness of coronary sinus reducer implantation in routine clinical practice. 12-month outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Refractory angina (RA), due to a lack of therapeutic options, remains a significant health care challenge. Coronary sinus reducer (CSR) has been recently introduced as a therapeutic option for this advanced form of coronary artery disease. However, despite growing evidence of its efficacy, data from routine clinical practice are scarce. OBJECTIVES: We report 12‑month observation data on the efficacy and safety of CSR implantation based on the results from the Lower Silesia Sinus Reducer Registry (NCT06288165). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included data from 67 consecutive patients diagnosed with chronic RA (Canadian Cardiovascular Society [CCS] classes 2-4) despite optimal medical therapy, who underwent CSR implantation. The study end points were defined as changes in angina severity (CCS class, the 7‑item Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ‑7]), safety outcomes, exercise tolerance (6‑minute walking distance [6MWD]), and quality of life assessments (the 36‑item Short Form Health Survey [SF‑36], European Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Version, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale). RESULTS: A total of 86.6% of the patients showed improvement by at least 1 CCS class (P <0.001) over the 12 months of follow-up, as compared with the baseline. Significant improvement in 12‑month angina control was demonstrated, as measured by the SAQ‑7 total score (mean [SD], 39.9 [15.2] vs 54.6 [19.7]; P <0.001). A similar improvement in the 12‑month quality of life assessment measured by the SF‑36 total score (mean [SD], 112.7 [23.2] vs 98.4 [31.9]; P <0.001) was noticed. One year after CSR implantation, a significant improvement in exercise tolerance was also observed (mean [SD] 6MWD, 265.9 [136.9] m vs 234.9 [109.1] m; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: One‑year data from the Lower Silesia Sinus Reducer Registry indicate that CSR implantation is an effective therapeutic option for patients with RA. Additionally, we did not observe any long‑term adverse effects associated with the device implantation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".