ArticleHeart and vessels2022
Efficacy of coronary sinus Reducer in patients with refractory angina and diabetes mellitus.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 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
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) implantation is currently recommended to relieve angina in patients with refractory symptoms despite optimal medical therapy and maximally achievable revascularization. The impact of diabetes mellitus on outcome after CSR implantation is at present unknown. We aimed to explore the impact of CSR in refractory angina patients with diabetes mellitus. Data from consecutive patients undergoing CSR implantation at four different centres between 2014 and 2018 were included. Patients were divided according to the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus. Primary objective of this analysis was to evaluate the clinical response to CSR implantation defined as an improvement of ≥ 1 classes of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) Classification. A total of 219 patients were included, 116 (53%) of whom had diabetes mellitus. The median age of the population was 69 years and 167 patients (76%) were male. There were no significant differences between groups of patients with and without diabetes mellitus with respect to CCS class at baseline (p value = 0.32) and at follow-up (p = 0.75). Over a median follow-up of 393 [224-1004] days, 84 (72%) of the patients with diabetes mellitus met the primary outcome, similarly to those without diabetes mellitus (p = 0.28). Fifty-three patients (24%) did not have an improvement in CCS class and no one experienced worsening of angina. CSR implantation was equally effective in improving angina symptoms among patients with refractory angina and diabetes mellitus compared to patients without diabetes mellitus.
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.