MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of the coronary sinus reducer for treating patients with refractory angina and diabetes mellitus: one-year outcomes from the REDUCER-I registry

2025· article· en· W7127608177 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ranil de Silva, Tim P. van de Hoef, J P Van Kuijk, J Byrne, M Montorfano, E Buschmann, Axel Linke, Tiffany Patterson, Shmuel Banai, N West, Stefan Verheye

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnginaMaceDiabetes mellitusConventional PCICanadian Cardiovascular SocietyRevascularizationCoronary sinusReducer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) creates a focal narrowing in the CS and has demonstrated significant improvements angina in randomized studies, with an observed redistribution of blood flow to the subendocardial myocardium within ischemic myocardial segments. However, patients with refractory angina often have diabetes mellitus (DM), an independent predictor of repeat revascularization and mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Purpose To evaluate differences in the effects of CSR implantation on angina severity and quality of life in patients with and without DM in the real-world observational REDUCER-1 study. Methods 371 patients received the CS Reducer implant as part of the multicenter, non-randomized REDUCER-I study in 25 medical centers in Europe of which 175 had DM and 196 did not have DM (no-DM). This analysis included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), change in CCS class, and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores at 12 months. Results There were no significant differences in the baseline demographics of the DM and no-DM cohorts; both were mostly male (DM 77.7% vs. no-DM 79.6%) with mean age 69.5±8.2 yrs (DM) vs. 68.7±10.7 yrs (no-DM). The majority of patients in both groups had a history of PCI (DM 74.9% vs. no-DM 73.0%) and a similar proportion of CCS class III/IV (DM 73.1% vs no-DM 68.4%). Through twelve months, DM and no-DM patients had similar rates of MACE (DM 8.9% vs no-DM 6.3%; p=0.4), which was primarily driven by the rates of MI (DM 6.6% vs. no-DM 4.7%). Both cohorts had significant improvements in all SAQ subscale measures at 12 months when compared to their baseline values, with no-DM patients having a greater improvement in SAQ quality of life scale (Figure 1). The distribution of CCS classes at 12 months was similar between DM and no-DM groups (p=0.55) with the proportion of patients remaining CCS class III/IV decreasing to 19.5% and 16.1% for the DM and no-DM cohorts, respectively. 71.0% of DM patients improved by greater than or equal to one CCS class at 12 months, which was similar to the 68.0% of no-DM patients with ≥1 CCS class improvement (p=0.66). Conclusion In this 12-month analysis of the REDUCER-I cohorts with and without diabetes, both groups of patients had similar and significant improvements in anginal symptoms and low rates of MACE after treatment with the CS Reducer. Despite the adverse prognosis for patients with diabetes following PCI compared with non-diabetic patients, no such disadvantage was shown following CS Reducer implantation, highlighting the potential utility of this device in such populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207