| Title |
Randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy for coronary heart disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Heart and Vessels, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00380-012-0244-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ping Yang, Tao Guo, Wei Wang, Yun-Zhu Peng, Yu Wang, Ping Zhou, Zhi-Ling Luo, Hong-Yan Cai, Ling Zhao, Hong-Wen Yang |
| Abstract |
Our aim was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) for the patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) using a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial design. Twenty-five patients with CHD were enrolled in this study. Fourteen of the patients were randomized into the CSWT group and 11 into the control group. We applied the CSWT procedure to each patient by using nine shock treatments during 3 months, but the shock wave (SW) energy was only applied to the patients in the CSWT group and not to the patients in the control group. Technetium-99m sestamibi myocardial perfusion, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose myocardial metabolism single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and two-dimensional echocardiography were performed to identify segments of myocardial ischemia, myocardial viability, and ejection fraction before and after CSWT. We also followed the patients to evaluate adverse effects. After CSWT, the New York Heart Association class, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina scale, nitroglycerin dosage, myocardial perfusion and myocardial metabolic imaging scores of dual-isotope SPECT in the CSWT group were reduced significantly (P = 0.019, 0.027, 0.039, 0.000, 0.001, respectively), and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire scale, 6-min walking test, and left ventricular ejection fraction were increased significantly (P = 0.021, 0.024, 0.016, respectively) compared with those before the SW treatment. All of the parameters in the control group did not change significantly after the treatment (all P > 0.05). No serious adverse effects of CSWT were observed. Cardiac shock wave therapy is a safe and effective treatment for CHD patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Egypt | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2012.
All research outputs
#16,049,105
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Heart and Vessels
#323
of 693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,623
of 162,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart and Vessels
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 693 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 162,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.