Background: Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a non-invasive technique that has been shown to be effective in reducing both angina and myocardial ischemia in patients not responding to medical therapy and without revascularization alternatives. The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term outcome of EECP treatment at a Scandinavian centre, in relieving angina in patients with chronic refractory angina pectoris.

BackgroundEnhanced external counter pulsation (EECP) is a non-invasive treatment option for patients with refractory angina pectoris ineligible to further traditional treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of EECP on patients at a Scandinavian medical centre and to investigate if outcome can be predicted by analysing baseline factors.Methods86 consecutive patients (70 male, 16 female) were treated with EECP and followed for two years post treatment. Canadian cardiovascular society (CCS) class was analysed, and medication and adverse clinical events were researched prior to EECP, at the end of the treatment, and at six, 12 and 24 months thereafter. Patients responding to therapy by improving at least one CCS class were compared with those who failed to respond. Any differences in background factors were recorded and analysed.Results79% of the patients responded to therapy by improving at least one CCS class. In general, the CCS class improved by one class after EECP treatment (3.05 before versus 2.14 after treatment). A total of 61.5% of the initial responders showed sustained improvement at the 12 month follow-up while 29% presented sustained improvement after 24 months. Treatment was most effective among patients suffering from CCS class III-IV angina pectoris, while patients suffering from CCS class II angina pectoris improved transiently but failed to show sustained improvement after the 12 month follow-up. Diabetes mellitus and calcium channel antagonists were more common among the non-responders (p < 0.05).ConclusionThis study confirms the safety and efficiency of EECP as a treatment option for patients suffering from refractory angina pectoris. The therapy is most beneficial in patients suffering from severe angina (CCS III-IV) while sustained response to therapy could not be verified among patients suffering from CCS class II angina pectoris.

The results from this study show that both EECP and SCS therapy reduce angina in patients with refractory angina pectoris; the response to EECP was slightly more effective than that to SCS. Thus, EECP can be used as an alternative treatment for patients not responding to electrical stimulation. The beneficial effects in the treated groups were maintained during the 12 months follow-up period.

EECP treatment affects the blood pressure in patients with refractory angina pectoris. The decreased blood pressure may be a result of an improved exercise capacity, an improved endothelial function and vasoreactivity in general.