ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
The Impact of Coronary Sinus Reducer on Arrhythmic Properties in Patients with Refractory Angina.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04121845 (The Influence of Coronary Sinus Reducer Implantation on Exertional Capacity, Extent of Myocardial Ischemia and hrECG Markers of Arrhythmogenicity in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
The Influence of Coronary Sinus Reducer Implantation on Exertional Capacity, Extent of Myocardial Ischemia and hrECG Markers of Arrhythmogenicity in Patients With Refractory Angina Pectoris
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coronary Sinus Reducer: History, Current Applications, and Future Perspectives.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Treatment with a coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is a new therapeutic option for refractory angina patients. Preclinical studies have shown antiarrhythmic properties of coronary sinus narrowing. The possible antiarrhythmic effect of CSR implantation is unknown. This study aimed to determine the possible antiarrhythmic effects of CSR implantation as assessed by high-resolution electrocardiogram (hrECG) parameters. Methods: 24 patients from the Crossroad study randomized to either CSR treatment (n = 12) or a sham procedure (n = 12) had hrECG recorded at baseline and after 6 months. T-peak and T-end interval (TpTe) defined as the time difference between the peak amplitude of the T wave and the global end of the T wave, spatial angle between QRS complex and T axis defined as the angle between the ventricular depolarization and repolarization vectors using maximal (QRSTP) and mean (QRSTM) vector amplitudes and spatial ventricular gradient (SVG) calculated as integral of ECG voltages over the entire QRST complex were analyzed. Additionally, we analyzed parameters of QT and heart rate variability using time and frequency domain. Results: At baseline, all analyzed parameters were comparable between both groups and heart rate remained constant. The intragroup analysis did not show any significant change in TpTe, QRSTP, QRSTM, SVG, QT, and heart rate variability at follow-up. Furthermore, intergroup comparison between CSR implantation and sham procedure also did not show any significant difference in the change of analyzed parameters. Conclusions: Compared to the sham procedure, CSR implantation did not demonstrate a significant impact on the arrhythmogenic substrate assessed with hrECG. Clinical Trial Registration: Unique Identifier: NCT04121845, https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04121845.
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.