The Effectiveness and Safety of Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease with Refractory Angina Pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study investigated the efficacy and safety profile of cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) in the treatment of ischemic heart disease (IHD) with refractory angina pectoris. Methods: A single-arm, pre-post prospective cohort study was conducted on 65 patients with IHD and refractory angina pectoris who were treated at the Department of Cardiology, 108 Military Central Hospital, between March 2015 and March 2021. The participants were prospectively monitored over a 6-month follow-up period. Results: Significant improvements were observed in angina symptoms, 6-minute walk test performance, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina classification, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels decreased from 942.75 pg/mL to 410.45 pg/mL. Echocardiographic parameters demonstrated enhanced cardiac function, with the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increasing from 43.89 ± 12.27% to 48.48 ± 10.57% (p < 0.05). The wall motion septal index (WMSI) decreased from 1.54 ± 0.18 to 1.24 ± 0.12, while global longitudinal strain (GLS) improved from -10.28 ± 2.82 to -12.74 ± 2.42. Myocardial perfusion imaging revealed marked reductions in summed stress score (SSS: 17.45 ± 8.61 vs 12.18 ± 7.89), summed rest score (SRS: 11.09 ± 7.74 vs 9.46 ± 7.23), and summed difference score (SDS: 4.37 ± 2.31 vs 2.57 ± 1.56; all p < 0.05). Severe perfusion defects decreased from 46.2% to 12.3% and extensive perfusion defect areas decreased from 60% to 26.2%. No adverse events, including arrhythmias or elevated cardiac enzyme levels, were reported. Conclusion: Cardiac shock wave therapy is effective in patients with ischemic heart disease and refractory angina, as evidenced by improvements in clinical, functional, and imaging parameters, along with a favourable safety profile.
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 | 0.001 | 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".