SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
The efficacy and safety of coronary sinus reducer in refractory angina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Device-Based Therapies for Refractory Angina.Journal of clinical 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRefractory angina is a challenging medical disorder associated with continuous anginal symptoms that do not respond to medical treatments or revascularization interventions. Coronary sinus reducer (CSR) has been introduced as a promising treatment option for patients with refractory angina. However, the avaliable evidence regarding the exact role of CSR in managing refractory angina is still inconclusive and limited by several factors, such as small sample size studies, and short follow up periods. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CSR for managing patients with refractory angina.
methodsAn extensive digital search of several databases encompassing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception until August 2024. We included all studies that assessed the clinical and functional outcomes of CSR in treating patients with refractory angina. Our primary endpoint was ≥ 1 class improvement of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score. Secondary outcomes were implantation success, periprocedural complications, and cardiovascular mortality. We also assessed the functional outcomes, such as the six-minute walk distance (6MWD), CCS, and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores.
results20 studies comprising 1565 patients constituted our systematic review and meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis revealed that 70% (95% CI, [65-74%], P < 0.001) of the patients showed an improvement ≥ 1 class in CCS score after CSR. Additionally, the implantation success rate was 99% (95% CI [98-100%], P < 0.001), and the periprocedural complications were severely low and estimated at 2% with 95% CI of [1-3%]. The pooled analysis showed that CSR significantly improved the functional outcomes, including 6MWD, CCS score, and all SAQ domains.
conclusionCSR appears to be a safe and effective treatment for refractory angina, providing significant improvements in symptoms and quality of life. The significant success rate of implantation and very low complication rates support its use as an alternative therapy for patients not permitted for conventional revascularization. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.