Evidence Hub

The Effectiveness of CS Reducer for the treatment of Refractory Angina - a Meta-Analysis

A. Hochstadt, T. Itach, Ilan Merdler, Eihab Ghantous, T. Ziv-Baran, M. Leshno, S. Banai, M. Konigstein

Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 2021

846 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Refractory angina is a debilitating condition that affects quality of life of patients worldwide, that after exhausting standard available therapies are regarded as "no option" patients. Recently, coronary sinus (CS) Reducer implantation became available and is gaining popularity in the treatment of refractory angina. The effectiveness of this therapy was demonstrated in one randomized sham-control trial and numerous uncontrolled prospective studies entailing altogether several hundred patients. We performed a meta-analysis to incorporate the data and elucidate its efficacy and safety.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of prospective studies assessing the effects of CS narrowing published in English until June 2021 was performed. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients improving ≥1 class in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CSS) angina score. Other endpoints included proportion of patients improving ≥2 CCS classes, procedural success, periprocedural complications, changes in Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores, and six-minute walk test (6MWT).

RESULTS

Data from 9 studies, including 846 patients was included. An improvement of ≥1 CSS class occurred in 76% [95% CI 73%- 80%] of patients. Improvement of ≥2 CSS classes was observed in 40% of patients (95% CI of 35-46%). Procedure success was 98%, with no major and 3% of non-major periprocedural complications. Post procedural SAQ scores and 6MWT distance were significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 846 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free