SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
The Efficacy of Coronary Sinus Reducer in Patients with Refractory Angina: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Mother-in-Child Technique to Implant Coronary Sinus Reducer in a Challenging Anatomy.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Refractory angina is a frequently encountered phenomenon in patients with coronary artery disease, often presenting therapeutic challenges to the clinical cardiologist. Novel treatment methods have been explored in this direction, with the coronary sinus reducer (CSR) being among the most extensively-investigated. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature for studies assessing the efficacy of CSR in patients with refractory angina. The primary endpoints of interest were procedural success and the improvement in angina according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) by at least one class. Secondary endpoints were the rate of periprocedural adverse events, the improvement by at least 2 CCS classes, and the mean change in CCS class. A random-effects meta-analysis of proportions (procedural success, improvement by Results: From a total of 515 studies identified from the original search, 12 studies were finally included for data extraction. Based on their meta-analysis, we observed a high CSR procedural success (98%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 96 to 99%) with a low rate of periprocedural complications (6%, 95% CI 5 to 7%), while most patients exhibited an improvement by at least 1 CCS class (75%, 95% CI 66 to 83%) after the intervention. A significant proportion of patients demonstrated an improvement by at least 2 CCS classes (39%, 95% CI 34 to 45%), with a mean change of -1.24 CCS class (95% CI -1.40 to -1.08). Conclusions: CSR is associated with high implantation success rates and significant improvements in angina symptoms for patients with refractory angina.
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.