Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2015
Efficacy of a device to narrow the coronary sinus in refractory angina.
Trial report in The New England journal of medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 112 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Study to Confirm the Safety and Efficacy of the Reducer on Patients With Refractory Angina
REDUCER-I: An Observational Study of the Neovasc Reducer™ System
The Influence of Coronary Sinus Reducer Implantation on Exertional Capacity, Extent of Myocardial Ischemia and hrECG Markers of Arrhythmogenicity in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris
Efficacy of the COronary SInus Reducer in Patients With Refractory Angina II
Who cites it
112 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 292 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of coronary sinus reducer in refractory angina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- The sham effect of invasive interventions in chronic coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of cardiac shock wave therapy plus optimal medical therapy on rehospitalization in patients with severe coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Bias and Loss to Follow-Up in Cardiovascular Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Pooled it
- Randomized trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions that include a placebo control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal · 2020Pooled it
- Perspectives on the 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization : Fifty Years of Revascularization: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading?Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2015Guideline
- Coronary atherosclerotic plaque intervention with Tongxinluo capsule (TXL-CAP): a multicenter, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Trial
- Quality of Life Assessment in Trials of Revascularization for Chronic Stable Angina: Insights from ORBITA and the Implications of Blinding.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2022Trial
- A novel method to interpret early phase trials shows how the narrowing of the coronary sinus concordantly improves symptoms, functional status and quality of life in refractory angina.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2021Trial
- Effects of Xuefu Zhuyu Granules on Patients with Stable Coronary Heart Disease: A Double-Blind, Randomized, and Placebo-Controlled Study.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2021Trial
- Effect of Permanent Right Internal Mammary Artery Closure on Coronary Collateral Function and Myocardial Ischemia.Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Case Report: Transient Complete Atrioventricular Block During Coronary Sinus Reducer Implantation: An Unexpected Complication.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- From angiography-derived physiology guided PCI to INOCA treatment and to coronary sinus reducer: navigating multiple pathophysiological targets in a single patient: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Coronary Sinus Reduction for REDUCER-I Patients With Refractory Angina and Angiographically Nonobstructive Coronary Artery Disease.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Precision percutaneous coronary intervention.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Review
- Contemporary and Emerging Therapies in the Management of Refractory Angina: A Clinical Review.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Use of a Novel, Self-Expanding Coronary Sinus Reducer to Treat Symptomatic Epicardial and Microvascular Ischemic Heart Disease: Preclinical and First-in-Human Experience.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Novel Mother-in-Child Technique to Implant Coronary Sinus Reducer in a Challenging Anatomy.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Coronary Sinus Reducer Implantation in a Patient With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Defibrillator.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
21 authors at 13 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany patients with coronary artery disease who are not candidates for revascularization have refractory angina despite standard medical therapy. The balloon-expandable, stainless steel, hourglass-shaped, coronary-sinus reducing device creates a focal narrowing and increases pressure in the coronary sinus, thus redistributing blood into ischemic myocardium.
methodsWe randomly assigned 104 patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina (on a scale from I to IV, with higher classes indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina) and myocardial ischemia, who were not candidates for revascularization, to implantation of the device (treatment group) or to a sham procedure (control group). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least two CCS angina classes at 6 months.
resultsA total of 35% of the patients in the treatment group (18 of 52 patients), as compared with 15% of those in the control group (8 of 52), had an improvement of at least two CCS angina classes at 6 months (P=0.02). The device was also associated with improvement of at least one CCS angina class in 71% of the patients in the treatment group (37 of 52 patients), as compared with 42% of those in the control group (22 of 52) (P=0.003). Quality of life as assessed with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire was significantly improved in the treatment group, as compared with the control group (improvement on a 100-point scale, 17.6 vs. 7.6 points; P=0.03). There were no significant between-group differences in improvement in exercise time or in the mean change in the wall-motion index as assessed by means of dobutamine echocardiography. At 6 months, 1 patient in the treatment group had had a myocardial infarction; in the control group, 1 patient had died and 3 had had a myocardial infarction.
conclusionsIn this small clinical trial, implantation of the coronary-sinus reducing device was associated with significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life in patients with refractory angina who were not candidates for revascularization. (Funded by Neovasc; COSIRA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205893.).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.