ArticleClinical cardiology2021
Predictors of treatment benefits after enhanced external counterpulsation in patients with refractory angina pectoris.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research focus and theme evolution on enhanced external counterpulsation: A bibliometric analysis.Heliyon · 2025Review
- Myocardial strain and refractory angina: an intriguing puzzle.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Article
- Predictors of treatment benefits after enhanced external counterpulsation in patients with refractory angina pectoris.Clinical cardiology · 2021Article
- Effects of Enhanced External Counterpulsation With Different Sequential Levels on Lower Extremity Hemodynamics.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2022
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a noninvasive treatment that can decrease limiting symptoms in patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP). Identifying responders to EECP is important as EECP is not widely available and relatively time intensive. HYPOTHESIS: The effect of EECP treatment on physical capacity in patients with RAP can be predicted from baseline patient characteristics and clinical factors.
methodsThis explorative study includes all patients from a cardiology clinic who had finished one EECP treatment and a 6 min walk test pre and post EECP. Clinical data, including Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), were assessed before treatment. If patients increased their 6 min walking distance (6MWD) by 10% post EECP, they were considered responders.
resultsOf the 119 patients (men = 97, 40-91 years), 49 (41.2%) were responders. Multinomial regression analysis showed that functional status (i.e., CCS class ≥3) (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.12-8.57), LVEF <50% (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.02-7.80), and prior performed revascularization (i.e., ≤ 1 type of intervention) (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.06-7.20) were predictors of response to EECP (p < .05, Accuracy 63.6%). Traditional risk factors (e.g., gender, smoking, and comorbidities) did not predict response.
conclusionsEECP treatment should be considered preferentially for patients that have a greater functional impairment, evidence of systolic left ventricular dysfunction, and exposure to fewer types of revascularization, either PCI or CABG. Improvement in 6MWD post EECP could imply improvement in physical capacity, which is a likely contributor to improved well-being among patients with RAP.
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.