4.1 Article

The Coronary Sinus Reducer; 5-year Dutch experience

Journal

NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 215-223

Publisher

BOHN STAFLEU VAN LOGHUM BV
DOI: 10.1007/s12471-020-01525-8

Keywords

Refractory angina; Coronary artery disease; Coronary Sinus Reducer

Funding

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation [2017T067]
  2. [CVON 2017-05/pERSUASIVE]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Refractory angina is a significant healthcare issue affecting millions of patients worldwide. The Coronary Sinus Reducer (CSR) has shown to be a safe and effective option for most patients, with successful implantation in 99% of cases. However, future studies should focus on identifying patients who may not benefit from this therapy.
Background Refractory angina is a growing and major health-care problem affecting millions of patients with coronary artery disease worldwide. The Coronary Sinus Reducer (CSR) is a device that may be considered for the relief of symptoms of refractory angina. It causes increased venous pressure leading to a dilatation of arterioles and reduced arterial vascular resistance in the sub-endocardium. This study describes the 5-year Dutch experience regarding safety and efficacy of the CSR. Methods One hundred and thirty-two patients with refractory angina were treated with the CSR. The primary efficacy endpoint of the study was Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class improvement between baseline and 6-month follow-up. The primary safety endpoint was successful CSR implantation in the absence of any device-related events. Results Eighty-five patients (67%) showed improvement of at least 1 CCS class and 43 patients (34%) of at least 2 classes. Mean CCS class improved from 3.17 +/- 0.61 to 2.12 +/- 1.07 after implantation (P < 0.001). The CSR was successfully implanted in 99% of the patients and only minor complications during implantation were reported. Conclusion The CSR is a simple, safe, and effective option for most patients with refractory angina. However, approximately thirty percent of the patients showed no benefit after implantation. Future studies should focus on the exact underlying mechanisms of action and reasons for non-response to better identify patients that could benefit most from this therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available