ArticleClinical cardiology2023
Design and rationale of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in patients with refractory angina pectoris (SCRAP) trial.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04915157 (Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris; a Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. 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.
Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris; a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refractory angina: mechanisms and stratified treatment in obstructive and non-obstructive chronic myocardial ischaemic syndromes.European heart journal · 2025Review
- Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris: Current Status and Future Perspectives, a Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Prospective evaluation of spinal cord stimulation in refractory angina: insights from a single-center cohort.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Design and rationale of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in patients with refractory angina pectoris (SCRAP) trial.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with refractory angina pectoris (RAP) is still under debate. Studies up to date have shown a positive effect with an improvement in quality of life. However, no double blinded randomized controlled trials have been performed. HYPOTHESIS &
methodsThe objective of this trial is to investigate if high density SCS leads to a significant reduction in the amount of myocardial ischemia in patients with RAP. Eligible patients must meet the criteria for RAP, have proven ischemia and a positive transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator treadmill test. Patients who meet the inclusion criteria will receive an implanted spinal cord stimulator. Patients receive 6 months of high density SCS and 6 months of no stimulation using a cross-over design. The order of the treatment options is determined using randomization. The primary endpoint is the effect of SCS measured by the change in percentage of myocardial ischemia using myocardial perfusion positron emission tomography scan. Key secondary endpoints are patient related outcome measures, major cardiac adverse events and safety endpoints. The follow-up period is 1 year for the primary and key secondary endpoints.
resultsThe SCRAP trial began enrollment on December 21, 2021 and is set to complete the primary assessments in June 2025. To date, January 2, 2023, 18 patients have been enrolled in the study and 3 patients have completed the 1-year follow-up.
conclusionsThe SCRAP trial is an investigator-initiated, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and cross-over randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy of SCS in patients with RAP. (ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT04915157).
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.