ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2026
Clinical efficacy comparison between extracorporeal shock wave therapy and enhanced external counterpulsation for coronary heart disease.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy(CSWT) and enhanced external counterpulsation(EECP),both individually and in combination,in patients with coronary artery disease(CAD),and to explore effective non-invasive treatment strategies. Methods: A total of 259 patients with CAD admitted between January 2023 and June 2024 were enrolled and randomly assigned to four groups:the Control group(n = 65) received conventional medication only; the EECP group(n = 65) received conventional medication plus EECP treatment(EECP; total duration 36 h); the CSWT group(n = 64) received conventional medication plus CSWT therapy(CSWT; total duration 4.5 h); and the Combination group(EECP + CSWT group,n = 65) received conventional medication combined with both CSWT(4.5 h) and EECP(36 h).Coronary stenosis severity, cardiac function indices, blood biochemistry and other indicators were evaluated at baseline and 12 months after treatment. Results: Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences among the groups(P > 0.05). After 12 months of treatment, the Gensini score of the EECP + CSWT group decreased by 20 points, which was significantly lower than that of the EECP group (-5 points, P < 0.05), the CSWT group (-15 points, P < 0.05) and the control group (-0.5 points, P < 0.05). Secondly, compared with the control group, the CSWT group, EECP group and EECP + CSWT group showed more significant improvements in cardiac function and blood biochemical parameters (P < 0.05). The EECP + CSWT group exhibited the most pronounced therapeutic efficacy, followed by the EECP group and the CSWT group; all three intervention groups were significantly superior to the Control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both CSWT and EECP effectively improve the severity of coronary artery disease, cardiac function,and blood biochemical parameters in CAD patients.The combination of these two therapies demonstrates synergistic effects, yielding significantly superior outcomes compared to either monotherapy.
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.