ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Prospective evaluation of spinal cord stimulation in refractory angina: insights from a single-center cohort.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Refractory angina pectoris represents a significant clinical challenge characterized by persistent chest pain despite maximally tolerated medical therapy and optimal revascularization attempts. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of invasive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with refractory angina. Methods: Twenty-one patients underwent neurostimulation system implantation between 2022 and 2023 (mean age 62.8 ± 7, 12 males) diagnosed with refractory angina. All patients received both chronic continuous stimulation and on-demand stimulation to alleviate anginal pain episodes. The primary endpoint was changes in the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-19) scores. Secondary endpoints included changes in the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, device-related complications, and nitrate use. Results: Eighteen patients completed the final follow-up. No statistically significant improvements were observed in any SAQ-19 domains. However, reductions in pain scores (41% vs. 53%, Conclusion: SCS did not significantly improve the primary endpoint of disease-specific quality of life (SAQ-19). However, treatment was associated with secondary benefits, including improvements in physical functionating, pain and mental health (SF-36) and a significant reduction in hospitalization rates. Complication rates were significant.
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.