Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37013654›Full record

ArticleClinical cardiology2023

Design and rationale of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in patients with refractory angina pectoris (SCRAP) trial.

F E Vervaat, A van der Gaag, C Smetsers, P C Barneveld, M Van't Veer, K Teeuwen, H van Suijlekom, L Dekker, I F Wijnbergen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04915157 naunknown statusnot on this map

Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris; a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCatharina Ziekenhuis EindhovenRan2021 to 2025Enrolled72ConditionsRefractory Angina Pectoris, Spinal Cord StimulationArmsSpinal Cord Stimulator
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F E VervaatDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6693-7355
A van der GaagDepartment of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
C SmetsersDepartment of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
P C BarneveldDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
M Van't VeerDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
K TeeuwenDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
H van SuijlekomDepartment of Anesthesiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
L DekkerDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
I F WijnbergenDepartment of Cardiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

ZonMw 10070012010001
6 · The paper itself

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

Coronary Artery DiseaseSpinal Cord StimulationAngina PectorisHeartHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomerefractory angina pectorisspinal cord stimulationtrial design

Identifiers

PMID37013654
PMCPMC10270247
OpenAlexW4362520732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.