Safety and efficacy of coronary sinus narrowing in chronic refractory angina: Insights from the RESOURCE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Refractory angina (RA) is considered the end-stage of coronary artery disease, and often has no interventional treatment options. Coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is a recent addition to the therapeutic arsenal, but its efficacy has only been evaluated on small populations. The RESOURCE registry provides further insights into this therapy. Methods: The RESOURCE is an observational, retrospective registry that includes 658 patients with RA from 20 centers in Europe, United Kingdom and Israel. Prespecified endpoints were the amelioration of anginal symptoms evaluated with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score, the rates of procedural success and complications, and MACEs as composite of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndromes, and stroke. Results: At a median follow-up of 502 days (IQR 225–1091) after CSR implantation, 39.7% of patients improved by ≥2 CCS classes (primary endpoint), and 76% by ≥1 class. Procedural success was achieved in 96.7% of attempts, with 3% of procedures aborted mostly for unsuitable coronary sinus anatomy. Any complication occurred in 5.7% of procedures, but never required bailout surgery nor resulted in intra- or periprocedural death or myocardial infarction. One patient developed periprocedural stroke after inadvertent carotid artery puncture. At the last available follow-up, overall mortality and MACE were 10.4% and 14.6% respectively. At one, three and five years, mortality rate at Kaplan-Meier analysis was 4%, 13.7%, and 23.4% respectively. Conclusions: CSR implantation is safe and reduces angina in patients with 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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".