Journals / The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology / 2018 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

Efficacy of cardiac shock wave therapy in patients with stable angina: The design of randomized, triple blind, sham-procedure controlled study

Pages
100–109
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Of these, 44 patients had angina Canadian CardiovascularSociety class III, and 66.7% of the patients had a history of myocardial infarction.Conclusion: Using sham applicators, blinding study participants, investigators, and endpoints assessors to the study data as well as centralizedrandomization ensures rigorous methodology and low risk of bias in this large randomized controlled CSWT study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Despite revascularization and optimal medical treatment (OMT), patients with angina often have a reduced quality of life due to inadequaterelief from symptoms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, there is limited evidence due to small,single-arm, single-center studies of low to moderate quality.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Of these, 44 patients had angina Canadian CardiovascularSociety class III, and 66.7% of the patients had a history of myocardial infarction.Conclusion: Using sham applicators, blinding study participants, investigators, and endpoints assessors to the study data as well as centralizedrandomization ensures rigorous methodology and low risk of bias in this large randomized controlled CSWT study.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: Despite revascularization and optimal medical treatment (OMT), patients with angina often have a reduced quality of life due to inadequaterelief from symptoms. Recent studies have shown that the application of shock waves may reduce angina symptoms and improve qualityof life, exercise capacity, and myocardial perfusion due to the stimulation of angiogenesis. However, there is limited evidence due to small,single-arm, single-center studies of low to moderate quality. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of cardiac shock wave therapy(CSWT) on exercise tolerance and angina symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease and objective evidence of myocardial ischemiawho cannot undergo traditional revascularization and experience angina despite OMT in comparison to sham procedure.Methods: We designed a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (NCT02339454) to assess the efficacy of CSWT in additionto OMT in patients with stable angina and myocardial ischemia documented by exercise treadmill test (ETT). All patients were treated with stabledoses of standard medical treatment 4 weeks before screening. An increase in the total exercise duration on ETT by ≥90 s from the baseline atthe end of the study was set as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included angina class, Seattle angina questionnaire scores, symptoms,and ECG changes during stress test. Patients underwent nine sessions of CSWT or corresponding sham procedure applied to all segmentsof the left ventricle, within 9 weeks. Endpoint assessments were performed at 6-month follow-up. The imaging substudies assessed the potentialof CSWT to reduce stress-induced myocardial ischemia detected by dobutamine stress echocardiography, cardiac single-photon emissioncomputed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.Results: At two centers, 72 of the 323 screened patients were randomized in two groups (ratio 1:1): active treatment and placebo control. Studypatients were predominantly males (70.8%); the mean age of the patients was 68.4±8.3 years. Of these, 44 patients had angina Canadian CardiovascularSociety class III, and 66.7% of the patients had a history of myocardial infarction.Conclusion: Using sham applicators, blinding study participants, investigators, and endpoints assessors to the study data as well as centralizedrandomization ensures rigorous methodology and low risk of bias in this large randomized controlled CSWT study.

🔖

Cite This Article

SHKOLNİK, E., BURNEİKAİTE, G., CELUTKİENE, J., SCHERBAK, M., ZUOZİENE, G., PETRAUSKİENE, B., TRUSH, E., LAUCEVİCİUS, A., VASYUK, Y. (2018). Efficacy of cardiac shock wave therapy in patients with stable angina: The design of randomized, triple blind, sham-procedure controlled study. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 100–109. https://ajindex.com/articles/367305

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Chan PS, Jones PG, Arnold SA, Spertus JA. Development and Validation of a Short Version of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014; 7: 640-7.
  2. Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA, Deyo RA, Prodzinski J, McDonell M, et al. Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25: 333-41. European cardiovascular statistics 2017. European Heart Network. Accessed 23 June 2017.
  3. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Picard MH, Friedrich MG, Kwong RY, Stone GW, et al. Comparative Definitions for Moderate- Severe Ischemia in Stress Nuclear, Echocardiography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 7: 593-604.
  4. Hachamovitc R, Hays SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 2003; 107: 2900-7.
  5. Sicari R, Nihoyannopoulos P, Evangelista A, Kasprzak J, Lancellotti P, Poldermans D, et al; European Association of Echocardiography. Stress echocardiography expert consensus statement: European Association of Echocardiography (EAE) (a registered branch of the ESC). Eur J Echocardiogr 2008; 9: 415-37.
  6. Cerqueira MD, Verani MS, Schwaiger M, Heo J, Iskandrian AS. Safety profile of adenosine stress perfusion imaging: results from the Adenoscan Multicenter Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 23: 384-9.
  7. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche P, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869. Burneikaite G, Shkolnik E, Celutkiene J, Zuoziene G, Butkuviene I, Petrauskiene B, et al. Cardiac shock-wave therapy in the treatment of coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2017; 15: 11. Yang P, Guo T, Wang W, Peng YZ, Wang Y, Zhou P, et al. Randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial of extracorporeal cardiac shock wave therapy for coronary heart disease. Heart Vessels 2013; 28: 284-91.
  8. Nirala S, Wang Y, Peng YZ, Yang P, Guo T. Cardiac shock wave therapy shows better outcomes in the coronary artery disease patients in a long term. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2016; 20: 330-8.
  9. Leibowitz D, Weiss AT, Rott D, Durst R, Lotan C. The efficacy of cardiac shock wav