MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037629873

Enhanced external counterpulsation treatment in patients with refractory angina pectoris with emphasis on physical capacity, health-related quality of life and safety : An explorative and interventional study

2021· article· en· W7037629873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJonkoping University Library (Jönköping University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)AnginaLimitingCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyQualitative researchRefractory (planetary science)Focus groupStable angina
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP) suffer from debilitating symptoms with considerable limitation of functional capacity and impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) despite optimised medical therapy. In addition, frequent angina symptoms are strongly associated with psychological distress. The challenging management of RAP and the severe limitations and symptomatology experienced by these patients underscore the need for further research in more novel treatment approaches. Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a potential non-invasive treatment that can decrease limiting symptoms in patients with RAP and is generally given as 35 one-hour sessions (i.e., one course) over seven weeks. Aim: The overall aim was to obtain a deeper understanding of patients’ experiences undergoing EECP treatment and to evaluate the effects of the treatment with focus on physical capacity, HRQoL and safety. Methods: An explorative and interventional study comprising both qualitative (paper I) and quantitative (papers II, III, and IV) study designs were performed. In paper I, semi-structured interviews took place with 15 strategically selected patients who had finished an EECP course at the two existing EECP clinics in Sweden. Data were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis. In paper II, a quasi-experimental study with one-group pre-test/post-test design with a six-month follow-up was performed with 50 patients who had undergone one EECP course. The following pre- and post-treatment data were collected: medication use, six-minute walk test (6MWT), functional class according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), self-reported (i.e., questionnaire data) cardiac anxiety, and HRQoL. The questionnaires were also completed at a six-month follow-up. In paper III and IV, sociodemographic, medical, and clinical data related to EECP were collected by reviewing medical records of 119 patients with RAP who had undergone one EECP course and a 6MWT pre- and post-treatment. An increased walking distance by 10% post treatment, measured with 6MWT, was considered an adequate treatment response. Results: In paper I, the findings were divided into four content areas, each comprising three categories: (1) experiences before EECP was initiated comprised of uncharted territory, be given a new opportunity and gain insight; (2) experiences during EECP sessions comprised physical discomfort, need of distraction, and sense of security; (3) experiences between EECP sessions comprised physical changes, socializing, and coordinating everyday life; and (4) experiences after one course of EECP treatment comprised improved physical well-being, improved mental well-being and maintaining angina in check. In paper II, patients used significantly less short-acting nitrates (p <. 001), walking distance increased on average by 46 m (p < .001), and CCS class improved after one EECP course (p < .001). In addition, all but one subscale of cardiac anxiety and all HRQoL components improved significantly, and the positive effects were maintained at the six-month follow-up (p < .05). In paper III, 49 (41.2%) of the 119 patients, were responders to EECP. CCS class ≥ 3, left ventricle ejection fraction < 50%, and previous revascularisation (i.e., ≤ one type of intervention) were predictors of response (p < .05). In paper IV, the treatment completion rate was high, and the occurrence of adverse events (AE) was low. Most device-related AE required nursing actions, while medical actions were needed more in the non-device-related AE. The AE distribution did not differ between responders and non-responders. Skin lesion/blister occurred mostly in responders and paraesthesia occurred mostly in non-responders. Conclusions: The EECP treatment was perceived as an unknown option among these patients but also as be given a new opportunity to get better. The presence and care provided by the cardiac nurse contributed to a sense of security during treatment. The treatment resulted in reduced symptom burden, improved physical capacity and HRQoL, and less cardiac anxiety, leading to increased physical activity and enhanced life satisfaction for patients with RAP. Moreover, the EECP should be considered preferentially for patients who have a greater functional impairment, evidence of systolic left ventricular dysfunction, and exposure to fewer types of revascularisation. The EECP treatment appears to be a safe and well-tolerated treatment option in patients with RAP.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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