Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina - a literature review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Refractory angina remains an important health issue despite improvements in coronary artery disease diagnosis and treatment, and its incidence is expected to grow. Although patients with refractory angina exhibit a mortality rate comparable to that of individuals with asymptomatic stable angina, the quality of life is worse and associated healthcare expenditure is higher. After having exhausted all treatment options, coronary sinus reducer (CSR) has recently gained more attention as a non – pharmacological treatment of refractory angina. Aim. To summarize the current knowledge about CSR for the treatment of refractory angina, its mechanism of action, efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed database using the keywords “coronary sinus reduction” AND “refractory angina”, focusing on articles published in English in the last 5 years. Results. Implantation of the CSR creates backward pressure in the coronary venous circulation resulting in a redistribution of flow from the subepicardial to the ischaemic subendocardial region. This translates into sustained angina reduction as demonstrated by a significant improvement in Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class, quality of life, mainly as assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, increased exercise tolerance as assessed by the 6-minute walk test and improved left ventricular systolic function. Under proper selection, CSR could also be of benefit to patients with right coronary artery disease. The most common complication is haematoma at the vascular access site. Cost-effectiveness is achieved within 2 years. Conclusions. CSR is an efficient, safe and cost-effective treatment of 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".