ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2021
The Coronary Sinus Reducer; 5-year Dutch experience.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 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 Efficacy of Coronary Sinus Reducer in Patients with Refractory Angina: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Coronary Sinus Reducer: History, Current Applications, and Future Perspectives.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Safety and Effectiveness of Coronary Sinus Reducer in the Therapy of Refractory Angina Pectoris-Mid-Term Results of the Real-Life Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Mechanisms of coronary sinus reducer for treatment of myocardial ischemia: in silico study.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2024Article
- A budget impact model and a cost-utility analysis of reducer device (Neovasc) in patients with refractory angina.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- The Coronary Sinus Reducer for refractory angina.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRefractory angina is a growing and major health-care problem affecting millions of patients with coronary artery disease worldwide. The Coronary Sinus Reducer (CSR) is a device that may be considered for the relief of symptoms of refractory angina. It causes increased venous pressure leading to a dilatation of arterioles and reduced arterial vascular resistance in the sub-endocardium. This study describes the 5‑year Dutch experience regarding safety and efficacy of the CSR.
methodsOne hundred and thirty-two patients with refractory angina were treated with the CSR. The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class improvement between baseline and 6‑month follow-up. The primary safety endpoint was successful CSR implantation in the absence of any device-related events.
resultsEighty-five patients (67%) showed improvement of at least 1 CCS class and 43 patients (34%) of at least 2 classes. Mean CCS class improved from 3.17 ± 0.61 to 2.12 ± 1.07 after implantation (P < 0.001). The CSR was successfully implanted in 99% of the patients and only minor complications during implantation were reported.
conclusionThe CSR is a simple, safe, and effective option for most patients with refractory angina. However, approximately thirty percent of the patients showed no benefit after implantation. Future studies should focus on the exact underlying mechanisms of action and reasons for non-response to better identify patients that could benefit most from this therapy.
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.