Original Article Significant Improvement in Functional Status and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients who Received EECP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: EECP therapy has been studied in refractory ischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure patients with good results in the past. However, the mechanism and potential indications remain unexplored. Methods: We did a retrospective analysis of defined end points in 60 heart failure patients who received EECP therapy at our center. Commonest indication of EECP therapy was significant diffuse coronary artery disease in patients who were not candidates for any revascularization therapy (95%) and continued to have symptoms despite maximal tolerated medical therapy. Majority of the patients were NYHA class III with mean age 64 years. The EECP therapy included daily sessions of 1-hour duration for 35 days. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class and the Medical Research Council (MRC) breathlessness scale were used to study improvement in symptoms. Quality of life indicators were (a) reduction in symptoms (b) improvement in activity (c) improvement in psychological parameters. The objective parameters studied were ejection fraction and 6-minute walk distance. Results: There was a significant improvement in all study parameters after EECP therapy (Table 1). Conclusions: EECP therapy is an excellent treatment option for heart failure patients who are at the end of the road in terms of medical and interventional therapies. Our hypothesis is that EECP therapy works not only through a mechanism of improved collateral circulation but also improves endothelial function with potential benefit in all vascular pathologies. Large randomized trials to validate the hypothesis are proposed. (J Clin Prev Cardiol 2013;2(1):8-16)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".