ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Device-Based Therapies for Refractory Angina.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. 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.
- Invasive Coronary Physiology in Contemporary Practice: From Lesion Selection to Comprehensive PCI Guidance and Functional Phenotyping.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Association of Coronary Sinus Flow with Long-Term Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome and Composite Cardiovascular Events.Biomedicines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A substantial proportion of patients with ischemic heart disease continue to experience recurrent or persistent angina despite optimized medical therapy and prior revascularization, highlighting the need for novel and effective treatment strategies. Device-based therapies have emerged as promising options to address this unmet clinical need. Among these, the Coronary Sinus Reducer™ (CSR) has gained particular attention, supported by randomized trials and registries demonstrating improvements in angina symptoms and quality of life, with a favorable safety profile. However, a disconnect between symptomatic relief and objective measures of myocardial perfusion has been noted, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms remain incompletely understood. Beyond the CSR, other device-based approaches-such as enhanced external counterpulsation, neuromodulation, and shockwave therapy-are either approved or under investigation. This review explores the current landscape of device-based therapies for angina, focusing on the evidence supporting the CSR and other device-based interventions. We discuss pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical outcomes, and future research directions aimed at optimizing therapeutic efficacy. Integrating patient-reported outcomes with physiological and imaging assessments will be essential to refine indications and improve long-term results. Device-based therapies represent a developing frontier in angina management, with the potential to improve outcomes in patients with persistent symptoms despite optimal medical and interventional therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.