MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412522729 · doi:10.1186/s12872-025-04617-8

The efficacy and safety of coronary sinus reducer in refractory angina: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4412522729 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Elshahat, Muhammad Ashraf Husain, Ahmed Elbataa, Ahmed Farid Gadelmawla, Hamdy A. Makhlouf, Rahma AbdElfattah Ibrahim, Mahmoud M. H. Hassanin, Fayed Mohamed Rzk, Ahmed Elmorsy Mohamed, Ahmed Helmi, Moaz Elsayed Abouelmagd, Ahmed Bahnasy, Emad Singer, Ahmed Mohamed, Mohamed Elnaggar, Shereen Mohamed Olama, Mahdi Saleh, Ahmed Abdelaziz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cardiovascular Disorders · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyMeta-analysisInternal medicineCochrane LibrarySubgroup analysisRevascularizationRefractory (planetary science)Conventional PCICardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Refractory angina is a challenging medical disorder associated with continuous anginal symptoms that do not respond to medical treatments or revascularization interventions. Coronary sinus reducer (CSR) has been introduced as a promising treatment option for patients with refractory angina. However, the avaliable evidence regarding the exact role of CSR in managing refractory angina is still inconclusive and limited by several factors, such as small sample size studies, and short follow up periods. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CSR for managing patients with refractory angina. METHODS: An extensive digital search of several databases encompassing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception until August 2024. We included all studies that assessed the clinical and functional outcomes of CSR in treating patients with refractory angina. Our primary endpoint was ≥ 1 class improvement of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score. Secondary outcomes were implantation success, periprocedural complications, and cardiovascular mortality. We also assessed the functional outcomes, such as the six-minute walk distance (6MWD), CCS, and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores. RESULTS: 20 studies comprising 1565 patients constituted our systematic review and meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis revealed that 70% (95% CI, [65-74%], P < 0.001) of the patients showed an improvement ≥ 1 class in CCS score after CSR. Additionally, the implantation success rate was 99% (95% CI [98-100%], P < 0.001), and the periprocedural complications were severely low and estimated at 2% with 95% CI of [1-3%]. The pooled analysis showed that CSR significantly improved the functional outcomes, including 6MWD, CCS score, and all SAQ domains. CONCLUSION: CSR appears to be a safe and effective treatment for refractory angina, providing significant improvements in symptoms and quality of life. The significant success rate of implantation and very low complication rates support its use as an alternative therapy for patients not permitted for conventional revascularization. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Cardiovascular DisordersSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207