Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287714

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy for refractory angina pectoris

Tomohiko Shindo 1, Kenta Ito 1, Tsuyoshi Ogata 1, Ryo Kurosawa 1, Kumiko Eguchi 1, Yuta Kagaya 1, Kenichiro Hanawa 1, Yuhi Hasebe 1, Kensuke Nishimiya 1, Takashi Shiroto 1, Jun Takahashi 1, Yasuo Okumura 2, Teruo Noguchi 3, Yukio Ozaki 4, Hiroyuki Daida 5, Nobuhisa Hagiwara 6, Tohru Masuyama 7, Taishiro Chikamori 8, Yoshihiro Fukumoto 9, Kenichi Tsujita 10, Hiroshi Kanai 11, Satoshi Yasuda 1, Hiroaki Shimokawa 12,¤,*
Editor: Marc W Merx13
PMCID: PMC10289346  PMID: 37352324

Abstract

Background

Despite the advances in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, effective treatment remains to be established to improve the quality of life and prognosis of patients with chronic coronary syndromes. This study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy, which we have developed as a novel non-invasive angiogenic therapy through upregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS).

Methods and findings

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (RCT) pilot trial of the LIPUS therapy for patients with refractory angina pectoris. The patients who received optimal medical therapy without indication of PCI or CABG due to the lack of graftability or complexity of coronary lesions were enrolled. They were randomly divided into the LIPUS treatment group (N = 31) and the placebo group (N = 25) in a 1:1 fashion. The LIPUS therapy was performed in a transthoracic manner for 20 min for 3 sections each (mitral, papillary muscle, and apex levels) under the conditions that we identified; frequency 1.875 MHz, intensity 0.25 MPa, and 32 cycles. The primary endpoint was weekly use of nitroglycerin. Secondary endpoints included stress myocardial perfusion imaging and others. The average weekly nitroglycerin use (times/week) was decreased from 5.50 to 2.44 in the LIPUS group and from 5.94 to 2.83 in the placebo group. The changes in the average weekly nitroglycerin use were comparable; -3.06 (95% CI: -4.481 to -1.648) in the LIPUS group (P<0.01) and -3.10 (95% CI: -4.848 to -1.356) in the placebo group (P<0.01). No adverse effects were noted.

Conclusions

In the present study, the LIPUS therapy did not further ameliorate chest pain as compared with optimal medications alone in patients with refractory angina pectoris. The present findings need to be confirmed in another trial with a large number of patients. (Registration ID: UMIN000012369).

Introduction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are established treatments for acute coronary syndrome [1]. On the other hand, regarding chronic coronary syndrome, current evidence is not still enough for physicians to select a proper treatment strategy [2]. The COURAGE and the ISCHEMIA trials have demonstrated that invasive treatment strategy may provide no additional prognostic benefits on the top of optimal medical therapy for chronic coronary syndrome [3, 4]. These results may be caused by procedure-related complications of PCI or CABG, high-risk of bleeding due to dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or the presence of coronary microvascular dysfunction that are not ameliorated by PCI or CABG. Especially, patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG despite optimal medical therapy could be regarded as a high-risk population with poor prognosis and therefore require a further therapeutic option. Furthermore, the ORBITA trial demonstrated that PCI for a single-vessel disease (>70% stenosis in the left anterior descending coronary artery) has no additional benefits for exercise tolerance as compared with placebo group [5]. This study suggests that much of symptomatic improvements after PCI may be due to placebo effects [5]. Thus, effective therapeutic strategy to improve quality of life (QOL) and prognosis of patients with refractory angina remains to be established.

We have developed a low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy as a novel, non-invasive angiogenic therapy, which upregulates endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and other angiogenic factors selectively in ischemic tissues [6]. Pulsed ultrasound with specific conditions has been reported to exert therapeutic effects, such as cell proliferation and anti-inflammatory responses [7, 8]. Mechanistically, by physically inducing cyclic strain, LIPUS stimulates caveolae that locate on the surface of endothelial cell membrane [9, 10]. We demonstrated that LIPUS phosphorylates Ser1177 of eNOS under the presence of caveolae, and subsequent phosphorylation of downstream Akt and Erk1/2 upregulates eNOS and VEGF expressions [11]. This therapeutic mechanism is called as “mechano-transduction” [1214]. Clinical application of the mechano-transduction mechanism could be expected as a safe and highly effective local treatment strategy [14].

In the present study, we conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial in order to address the efficacy and safety of the LIPUS therapy for patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG.

Methods

Study protocols

We enrolled patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG despite optimal medical therapy, who had angina episode at least once a week. Specifically, on the premise that existing optimal medical therapy has been performed, we enrolled patients who were found to be difficult to apply PCI or CABG due to the lack of graftability or complexity of lesions at the heart team conference. Angiography was performed in all enrolled patients, and only patients who have evidence of myocardial ischemia by invasive functional evaluation or stress myocardial perfusion imaging were enrolled. They were enrolled in 2013–2018, and were able to regularly visit an outpatient clinic. The registration of this study was extended from 3 years to 6 years because of the interruption of funding source midway through. All the patients were given informed consent and they were obtained by written form. They were randomly and automatically assigned to either the LIPUS group or the placebo group in a 1:1 fashion, according to the following 4 allocation factors; Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class score (II, III or IV), weekly use of nitroglycerin (4 times a week or less, or 5 times a week or more), left ventricular ejection fraction (40% or more, or less than 40%), and participating hospital. In this trial including 10 participating institutes, because 4 stratification factors were used, our first sample size setting was 80 patients. However, it was redesigned to enroll 60 patients in the middle of the trial due to delays in patient enrollment. In order to avoid any possible pathological angiogenesis, patients with malignancies or uncontrolled diabetic retinopathy were excluded. The diagnosis and approval of enrollment were made by a third-party committee. After we confirmed patient’s eligibility, subject information was sent to the registration center, randomized allocation was performed, and then the allocation results were documented to the open-label treatment physicians at each institution. In this study, all participating physicians and supporting staff except un-blinded physician who handled the LIPUS or placebo procedure were blinded. Authors could not access to the information that could identify individual participants during data collection. This study was conducted at 10 major cardiovascular institutes in Japan, including Kumamoto University Hospital, Kurume University Hospital, Hyogo Medical University Hospital, Fujita Health University Hospital, Tokyo Women’s Medical University Hospital, Nihon University Hospital, Tokyo Medical University Hospital, Juntendo University Hospital, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, and Tohoku University Hospital. This study was approved by the institutional review board of each institute under the Good Clinical Practice and was conducted with the ethical principles under the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol of the present study was approved by the institutional review board of the Tohoku University Hospital (No. 133004) and was registered as UMIN Trial ID: UMIN000012369. All the clinical data obtained in this trial can be disclosed upon appropriate request.

LIPUS therapy

Patients were placed in the left lateral position, and the probe was placed on the anterior chest wall to observe the heart and depict the ischemic site (Fig 1A). By changing the setting to the ultrasound therapeutic mode, the depiction range became the treatment range. The ischemic area was determined in advance by invasive functional evaluation or stress myocardial perfusion imaging. Based on the preliminary study, the conditions of the LIPUS therapy in the trial were as follows; scanning beam with sector-type probe, frequency 1.875 MHz, intensity 0.25 MPa, transmission wave number 32 each, pulse repetitive frequency (PRF) 1 kHz, and target depth 6–8 cm [6, 11]. The focus of LIPUS therapy was set at 4–8 cm, which is the depth of a typical human heart, and the depth of focus was adjusted by the treating physician using diagnostic echocardiography. LIPUS was applied for 20 min per cross-section, and was irradiated for 3 cross-sections from the base to the apex of the heart (mitral valve, papillary muscle, and apex levels) at an interval of 5 min (Fig 1A). One session consisted of the LIPUS therapy every other day for 3 days. The study protocol with the first and second series is shown in Fig 1B. In the first series, after the screening period, the LIPUS therapy and sham treatment were performed in a double-blind manner for patients and physicians, and only the un-blinded sonographer (physician) knew the therapy option. In the second series, 3 months after the first series, additional LIPUS therapy was applied to all patients. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated at 3 months after the first series, while safety outcome at one year after the second series (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. LIPUS therapy for angina pectoris.

Fig 1

(A) Left, LIPUS therapy equipment (LIPUS machine and chest band). Right, 3 cross-sections for the therapy (mitral valve, papillary muscle, and apical levels). (B) Trial protocols. (C) CONSORT flow diagram. LIPUS: low-intensity pulsed ultrasound.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was weekly use of nitroglycerin at 3 months after the therapy. The secondary endpoints included chest pain frequency, CCS class score, 6-min walking distance, stress myocardial perfusion imaging, echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and adverse events. Weekly use of nitroglycerin and chest pain frequency were recorded by individual patient in dedicated notebooks received after the registration, and at the follow-up period, collected by blinded clinical research coordinator (CRC). During the study period, the notebooks were reviewed monthly by the CRC to confirm their accuracy regarding chest symptoms and frequency of nitroglycerin use. CCS class score was recorded by another blinded cardiologist. Changes in walking distance of the 6-min walking distance from baseline to 84 days after the initial implementation of treatment were obtained. Changes of left ventricular ejection fraction and abnormal wall motion in the echocardiography and cardiac MRI from baseline to 84 days after the initial implementation of treatment were obtained. As an evaluation of myocardial ischemia by stress myocardial perfusion imaging, the summed difference score (SDS) of the treatment area and the change in the ischemic amount before and 3 months after the treatment were calculated. Ischemic area was determined by prior invasive functional evaluation or stress myocardial perfusion imaging, and the analysis area of the heart was divided into 17 segments, and only the treatment-targeted area was extracted and analyzed [15]. In Table 2, we reported all the changes (delta) of variables between baseline and 84 days after the initial implementation of treatment, including SDS, wall motion abnormalities at rest. Adverse events included all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization due to unstable angina or heart failure. Regarding the analysis of long-term prognosis, we analyzed not only the cases that completed follow-up, but also all the cases that received the therapy at least once in this study.

Table 2. Clinical outcomes.

  LIPUS Group (N = 31) Placebo Group (N = 27) P-value
Primary endpoint      
 Weekly nitroglycerin use -3.06 (-4.481, -1.648) -3.10 (-4.848, -1.356) 0.97
Secondary endpoints
 CCS class score -0.50 (-0.773, -0.227) -0.54 (-0.824, -0.253) 0.84
 Chest pain, per week -3.98 (-5.796, -2.156) -5.25 (-9.057, -1.443) 0.52
 Treadmill exercise load, kcal -2.40 (-9.041, 4.233) 3.87 (-1.982, 9.726) 0.16
 Treadmill exercise load time, min -0.55 (-1.639, 0.538) 0.37 (-0.548, 1.295) 0.21
 6-min walk distance, m -0.7 (-52.60, 51.20) 12.3 (-28.12, 52.72) 0.66
 Stress myocardial perfusion imaging (SDS) 0.31 (-1.149, 1.770) 0.00 (-1.969, 1.969) 0.79
 Echocardiography LVEF, % -0.41 (-2.622, 1.802) 0.18 (-2.406, 2.776) 0.72
 Cardiac MRI LVEF, % 4.03 (-10.520, 18.573) 2.98 (-4.109, 10.060) 0.84
 Cardiac MRI stroke volume, mL -7.1 (-24.63, 10.39) 13.3 (-1.10, 27.68) 0.07

CCS denotes Canadian Cardiovascular Society, LVEF left ventricular Ejection fraction, MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Post-hoc analysis

In addition, we evaluated the correlation in stress myocardial perfusion imaging between the extent of baseline myocardial ischemia and post-treatment changes in the ischemia. This correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the LIPUS therapy when applied twice, between baseline and 6 months after the therapy.

Statistical analysis

For the statistical analysis of primary and secondary endpoints, the mean value of change before and after the LIPUS therapy and the confidence interval were estimated, and comparisons were made between the 2 groups using the t-test. The Wald method was used for the comparison of the proportion of improved cases after the treatment and the estimation of the confidence interval. MACE and all-cause death were compared as cumulative incidence using Gray’s test where dropout due to death from non-cardiovascular causes or non-MACE adverse events were treated as a competing risk. For the estimation of the hazard ratio and P-value, the Fine and Gray model, which is an extension hazard model of the Cox’s proportional hazards model, was used. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for adverse event withdrawal rates were calculated for each group at 450 days after the initial treatment. P value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Baseline patient characteristics

Baseline patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The average age of the LIPUS group was 70 year-old and that of the placebo group was 73.5 (Table 1). Among the 64 patients enrolled in the trial, 33 were assigned to the LIPUS group and 31 to the placebo group (Fig 1C). After the randomization, 2 in the LIPUS group did not complete the planned protocol due to withdrawal of consent, while 6 in the placebo group did not complete the trial (exacerbation of complications in 1, withdrawal of consent in 4, and death in 1 due to acute aortic dissection). Thus, 31 patients in the LIPUS group and 25 in the placebo group were analyzed for efficacy and safety endpoints (Fig 1C). There were no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics between the 2 groups, expect for the incidence of atrial arrhythmias and diastolic blood pressure.

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics.

  LIPUS Group (N = 31) Placebo Group (N = 27) P-value
Age±SD, years 70.0±11.3 73.5±11.7 0.25
Sex
Female, n (%) 6 (19.4%) 10 (37.0%) 0.15
Male, n (%) 25 (80.6%) 17 (63.0%)
Comorbidities
 Hypertension, n (%) 29 (93.5%) 24 (88.9%) 0.66
 Hyperlipidemia, n (%) 27 (87.1%) 23 (85.2%) 1.00
 Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 22 (71.0%) 18 (66.7%) 0.78
 Heart failure, n (%) 9 (29.0%) 12 (44.4%) 0.28
 Stroke, n (%) 1 (3.2%) 3 (11.1%) 0.33
 Myocardial infarction, n (%) 1 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1.00
 Valvular disease, n (%) 3 (9.7%) 4 (14.8%) 0.69
 PAD/ Aortic aneurysm, n (%) 10 (32.3%) 13 (48.1%) 0.28
 COPD/ Respiratory disease, n (%) 9 (29.0%) 4 (14.8%) 0.22
 Atrial fibrillation/Arrhythmia, n (%) 5 (16.1%) 11 (40.7%) 0.04
 Kidney disease/Renal dysfunction, n (%) 12 (38.7%) 11 (40.7%) 1.00
 Digestive disease, n (%) 7 (22.6%) 6 (22.2%) 1.00
Medications
 Aspirin/P2Y12 inhibitors, n (%) 31 (100.0%) 25 (92.6%) 0.21
 Beta-blockers, n (%) 28 (90.3%) 24 (88.9%) 1.00
 Calcium channel blockers, n (%) 20 (64.5%) 14 (51.9%) 0.42
 RASi, n (%) 23 (74.2%) 16 (59.3%) 0.27
 Lipid-lowering therapy, n (%) 26 (83.9%) 24 (88.9%) 0.71
 Antidiabetic drugs, n (%) 15 (48.4%) 12 (44.4%) 0.80
 SGLT2i, n (%) 4 (12.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0.12
 Nitroglycerin/Vasodilators, n (%) 31 (100.0%) 27 (100.0%) -
 Loop diuretic/V2 receptor antagonists, n (%) 11 (35.5%) 10 (37.0%) 1.00
 MRA, n (%) 2 (6.5%) 5 (18.5%) 0.23
 Oral anticoagulants, n (%) 4 (12.9%) 8 (29.6%) 0.19
 Antiarrhythmic drugs, n (%) 1 (3.2%) 3 (11.1%) 0.33
 Digoxin, n (%) 1 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1.00
Vital signs
 Systolic blood pressure±SD, mmHg 127.5±18.1 123.2±18.4 0.38
 Diastolic blood pressure±SD, mmHg 69.7±10.4 64.7±7.7 0.05
 Heart rate±SD, beats per min 69.3±13.3 64.5±11.6 0.15
 Height±SD, cm 161.3±7.7 158.9±9.4 0.29
 Body weight±SD, kg 64.0±14.7 62.4±8.6 0.62
 Body mass index±SD, kg/m2 24.4±4.4 24.7±3.0 0.76
Echocardiography LVEF±SD, % Laboratory data 53.5±13.2 53.1±12.0 0.90
 Creatinine±SD, mg/dL 2.4±3.0 2.1±2.8 0.67
 LDL-cholesterol±SD, mg/dL 80.3±21.8 81.5±25.2 0.85
 HbA1c±SD, % 6.7±1.0 6.7±1.1 0.77
 CRP±SD, mg/dL 0.34±0.37 0.28±0.39 0.61
 BNP±SD, pg/dL 366.2±771.8 265.1±422.3 0.55

Results are presented as means±SD. Categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages. PAD denotes Peripheral Arterial Disease, COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, RASi Renin-Angiotensin System inhibitors, SGLT2i Sodium Glucose Co-transporter 2 inhibitors, MRA Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists, LVEF Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, LDL-C Low Density Lipoprotein-cholesterol, CRP C-reactive protein, BNP Brain Natriuretic Peptide.

Primary endpoint

The average weekly use of nitroglycerin was 5.5 in the LIPUS group and 5.9 in the placebo group, and the average CCS class score was 2.4 in the LIPUS group and 2.6 in the placebo group. The average weekly use of nitroglycerin (times/week) decreased from 5.50 to 2.44 in the LIPUS group and from 5.94 to 2.83 in the placebo group (Fig 2A). The changes in the weekly use of nitroglycerin were -3.06 (95% CI: -4.481 to -1.648) in the LIPUS group (P<0.01) and -3.10 (95% CI: -4.848 to -1.356) in the placebo group (P<0.01), with no difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.97). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the proportion of patients whose average weekly use of nitroglycerin improved (P = 0.14).

Fig 2. Results of the LIPUS therapy on primary and secondary outcomes.

Fig 2

(A) Weekly use of nitroglycerin. (B) Extent of myocardial ischemia evaluated by stress myocardial perfusion imaging. (C) Kaplan-Meier curve of all-cause death. (D) Kaplan-Meier curve of MACE. LIPUS: low-intensity pulsed ultrasound.

Secondary endpoints

CCS class score and average weekly frequency of chest pain decreased significantly but equally in the 2 groups (Table 2). Treadmill exercise test, 6-min walk distance, echocardiography, and cardiac MRI also showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (Table 2). Echocardiographic wall motion abnormalities were -0.41 (-2.622–1.802, N = 30) in the LIPUS group and 0.18 (-2.406–2.776, N = 26) in the placebo group, which did not change from pre-treatment level (at the time of screening) in both groups (P = 0.72). Importantly, in stress myocardial perfusion imaging, the average extent of myocardial ischemia decreased from 13.71 to 12.84 in the LIPUS group, but increased from 6.41 to 8.48 in the placebo group (P = 0.18) (Fig 2B).

Post-hoc analysis

This analysis was performed because of the significant baseline difference in the extent of myocardial ischemia seen in the stress myocardial perfusion imaging. However, adjusting the baseline myocardial ischemia in an ANCOVA analysis was not effective because of this small sample size. So, we compared the patients with the extent of myocardial ischemia less than 30% of the left ventricle, and we found that myocardial ischemia improved depending on the extent of baseline myocardial ischemia only in the LIPUS group (P<0.01) but not in the placebo group (S1 Fig). S2 Fig shows representative images of a patient who showed improvement in myocardial ischemia in response to the LIPUS therapy.

Adverse events

The median follow-up period for both groups was 452 days for the LIPUS group and 449 days for the placebo group. All-cause death was observed in 1 of 32 patients (3.1%) in the LIPUS group and in 4 of 29 patients (13.8%) in the placebo group (95% CI: 0.027 to 1.922, HR 0.23, P = 0.17) (Table 3). All-cause death tended to be improved in the LIPUS groups as compared with the placebo group (P = 0.17, HR 0.23) (Fig 2C). MACE was documented in 4 of 32 patients (12.5%) in the LIPUS group and in 5 of 29 patients (17.2%) in the placebo group (95% CI: 0.192 to 2.587, HR 0.71, P = 0.60) (Table 3). There was no difference in MACE between the 2 groups (P = 0.60, HR 0.71) (Fig 2D).

Table 3. Clinical outcomes (MACE).

Adverse events (17 months)
  LIPUS Group (N = 32) Placebo Group (N = 29) Hazard Ratio (95%CI) P-value
All-cause death, n (%) 1 (3.1%) 4 (13.8%) 0.23 (0.027–1.922) 0.17
MACE, n (%) 4 (12.5%) 5 (17.2%) 0.71 (0.192–2.587) 0.59
Cardiovascular death, n (%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.4%) 0.00 (-) -
Non-fatal myocardial infarction, n (%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.4%) 0.00 (-) -
Hospitalization due to unstable angina/heart failure, n (%) 4 (12.5%) 3 (10.3%) 1.21 (0.271–5.408) 0.80

MACE denotes Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events.

There were 7 device defects occurred during the treatment period (6 in the LIPUS group and 1 in the placebo group), which were immediately repaired. All of the device defects were damage of breast band or fixture which fix the probe with breast band. In this trial, there were no serious health damages related to the LIPUS therapy.

Discussion

In the present study, we conducted a pilot trial to examine the efficacy and safety of the LIPUS therapy for patients with refractory angina. We found no significant differences in the primary subjective endpoints between the 2 groups. There was no serious adverse effect of the LIPUS therapy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first clinical trial to address the efficacy and safety of the LIPUS therapy in patients with refractory angina.

In the past clinical trials for chronic coronary syndrome, most of the investigators focused on 2 major outcomes, including frequency of chest pain and long-term prognosis [16]. In terms of frequency of chest pain, although there are some studies showing that PCI and optimal medical therapy (OMT; e.g. beta-blockers) improved QOL of stable angina patients [17], the ORBITA trial clearly demonstrated that the placebo effects are substantially involved in the treatment of chronic coronary syndrome [5]. Moreover, some minimally invasive revascularization have been developed and clinical trials have been conducted in recent years, however, it could not prove its efficacy in the QOL of stable angina [18]. On the other hand, for the prognosis of chronic coronary syndrome, there are still major debates. In the ISCHEMIA trial with chronic coronary syndrome patients with moderate to severe ischemia, there was no difference in long-term prognosis between the intervention group treated with PCI and/or CABG and the conservative medical treatment group [3]. In the present study, the primary endpoint was weekly nitroglycerin use with the aim of improving QOL in chronic coronary syndrome patients, which was dependent on subjective perception [5]. In fact, in this study, weekly nitroglycerin use, CCS score, and chest pain frequency were all significantly but equally improved in both groups, indicating that the placebo effects were involved in the subjective endpoints, as in the ORBITA trial [5]. However, importantly, this study also included objective secondary assessments such as stress myocardial perfusion imaging and prognosis. In these objective secondary endpoints, we could not reveal the statistically significant efficacy of the LIPUS therapy.

Based on these results, we consider that the efficacy of the LIPUS therapy was not shown in the present protocol. However, by analyzing myocardial perfusion imaging in individual cases, we found that some cases showed improvement in myocardial ischemia that could be regarded as a “responder”. In order to assess these cases, we performed an additional post-hoc analysis after adjusting the baseline myocardial ischemic volume. We found a significant correlation between the extent of baseline myocardial ischemia and the anti-ischemic effect of the LIPUS therapy. Furthermore, the LIPUS therapy tended to improve long-term prognosis as compared with the placebo group. From these results, we consider that a next pivotal trial with a larger number of patients and objective endpoints is required for future evaluation of the LIPUS treatment.

Mechanistically, we need to consider whether the total amount of LIPUS irradiation in the present study was enough to exert sufficient therapeutic effects. In the present trial, LIPUS was applied for 3 cross-sections for 20 min each from the base to the apex of the heart 3 days in a week. The similar conditions of the LIPUS therapy have been shown to exert eNOS-mediated angiogenic effects in porcine model of chronic myocardial ischemia and mouse model of acute myocardial infarction [6, 11]. However, compared with these experimental studies with animal models, the angiogenic effects of the LIPUS therapy may not be sufficient for humans. Indeed, we also observed that repetitive LIPUS irradiation upregulated eNOS in mouse models of pressure-overload heart failure [19] and diabetes-induced heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [20]. In addition, we have recently confirmed that the LIPUS therapy on failing right ventricle (6 times in 2 consecutive weeks) was effective in a mouse model of pulmonary artery banding (PAB) and a rat model of Sugen/hypoxia (SU/Hx) [21]. We also have demonstrated the effectiveness of “whole-brain” irradiation of the LIPUS therapy in mouse models of cerebrovascular dementia [22], cerebral infarction [23], and Alzheimer’s disease [22], where eNOS plays a pivotal role. Moreover, we have recently conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial of the LIPUS therapy for early stage of Alzheimer’s disease [24]. We found that the LIPUS therapy tended to suppress cognitive impairment at 24, 48, and 72 weeks as compared with the placebo group [24]. Thus, irradiation to the entire heart, that is “whole-heart” irradiation strategy, may be considered for the next pivotal trial.

Several limitations should be mentioned for the present study. First, as discussed above, we need to define objective findings, especially myocardial flow-related data, as objective primary endpoint. Second, the number of patients was small for statistical validation. Third, as discussed above, in order to enhance the anti-ischemic effects, repetitive performance of the LIPUS therapy for the whole heart needs to be considered for the next pivotal trial. Fourth, in this study, patients with treatment-resistant angina pectoris were enrolled compared to the past studies shown above, and it is possible that the trial design was difficult to mining the effectiveness of the LIPUS therapy. Fifth, regarding the occurrence of competing risk events, only one or two deaths and discontinuation due to adverse events occurred, which was quite small. As a result, the need of using competing risk analysis has become less. All these considerations need to be included when designing the protocol of the next pivotal trial.

In summary, in the present pilot trial, we demonstrate the safety but not the additional efficacy of the LIPUS therapy for patients with refractory angina pectoris treated with optimal medical therapy. The present findings need to be further examined in the next pivotal trial with a large number of patients and modified protocols of the LIPUS therapy with objective endpoints.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

S2 Checklist. PLOS ONE clinical studies checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Representative myocardial perfusion images.

Myocardial perfusion images in a representative case in response to the LIPUS therapy.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Post-hoc analysis of the LIPUS therapy on objective outcome.

Correlation between the extent of baseline myocardial ischemia and that of post-treatment changes in myocardial ischemia evaluated by stress myocardial perfusion imaging. LIPUS: low-intensity pulsed ultrasound.

(PDF)

S1 File

(PDF)

S2 File

(DOCX)

S3 File

(PDF)

S4 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Katsumi Miyauchi, M.D., Ph.D and Kiyoshi Takasu, M.D., Ph.D., Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, and Hirokuni Akahori, M.D., Ph.D., Hyogo Medical University Graduate School of Medicine, Nishinomiya, Japan. We also thank Tomonori Ishii, Shoko Otomo, and Yuko Sawada, Department of Clinical Trial Implementation, Clinical Research, Innovation and Education Center, Tohoku University Hospital (CRIETO), for coordinating the trial, Koji Ikeda, Fumie Abe, Karin Ono, Satoki Kadota, Manami Hoshi, and Yoshimasa Yamazaki, CRIETO, for supporting the trial, and Airi Takagi and Takuhiro Yamaguchi, CRIETO, for statistical analysis. Appreciation is also expressed to all patients and their families who made our work possible.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine (8122-717-7153).

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) (No. 18lm0203047h0001). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bhatt DL, Lopes RD, Harrington RA. Diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndromes: A review. JAMA. 2022;327:662–675. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.0358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D, Amsterdam E, Bhatt DL, Birtcher KK, et al. 2021AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/ SCMR guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;144:e368–e454. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, Bangalore S, O’Brien SM, Boden WE, et al. , ISCHEMIA Research Group. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1395–1407. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. , COURAGE Trial Research Group. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503–16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa070829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, Sen S, Tang K, Davies J, et al. , ORBITA investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391:31–40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hanawa K, Ito K, Aizawa K, Shindo T, Nishimiya K, Hasebe Y, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound induces angiogenesis and ameliorates left ventricular dysfunction in a porcine model of chronic myocardial ischemia. PLoS One. 2014;9:e104863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Barzelai S, Sharabani-Yosef O, Holbova R, Castel D, Walden R, Engelberg S, et al. Low-intensity ultrasound induces angiogenesis in rat hind-limb ischemia. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32:139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mizrahi N, Seliktar D, Kimmel E. Ultrasound-induced angiogenic response in endothelial cells. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33:1818–1829. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2007.05.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Parton RG. Cell biology. Life without caveolae. Science. 2001;293:2404–2405. doi: 10.1126/science.1065677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Parton RG, del Pozo MA. Caveolae as plasma membrane sensors, protectors and organizers. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2013;14:98–112. doi: 10.1038/nrm3512 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shindo T, Ito K, Ogata T, Hatanaka K, Kurosawa R, Eguchi K, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound enhances angiogenesis and ameliorates left ventricular dysfunction in a mouse model of acute myocardial infarction. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016;36:1220–1229. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.115.306477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Davies PF. Flow-mediated endothelial mechanotransduction. Physiol Rev. 1995;75:519–60. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1995.75.3.519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yu J, Bergaya S, Murata T, Alp IF, Bauer MP, Lin MI, et al. Direct evidence for the role of caveolin-1 and caveolae in mechanotransduction and remodeling of blood vessels. J Clin Invest. 2006;116:1284–1291. doi: 10.1172/JCI27100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shindo T, Shimokawa H. Therapeutic angiogenesis with sound waves. Ann Vasc Dis. 2020;13:116–125. doi: 10.3400/avd.ra.20-00010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Partridge JB, Anderson HR. Left ventricular anatomy: its nomenclature, segmentation, and planes of imaging. Clin Anat. 2009;22:77–84. doi: 10.1002/ca.20646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Davies A, Fox K, Galassi AR, Banai S, Ylä-Herttuala S, Lüscher TF. Management of refractory angina: an update. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:269–283. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bech GJ, Bruyne BD, Pijls NH, Muinck ED, Hoorntje JC, Escaned J, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001;103:2928–34. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.103.24.2928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shkolnik E, Burneikaite G, Jakutis G, Scherbak M, Zuoziene G, Petrauskiene B, et al. A randomized, triple-blind trial of cardiac shock-wave therapy on exercise tolerance and symptoms in patients with stable angina pectoris. Coron Artery Dis. 2018;29:579–586. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ogata T, Ito K, Shindo T, Hatanaka K, Eguchi K, Kurosawa R, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound enhances angiogenesis and ameliorates contractile dysfunction of pressure-overloaded heart in mice. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0185555. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Monma Y, Shindo T, Eguchi K, Kurosawa R, Kagaya Y, Ikumi Y, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound ameliorates cardiac diastolic dysfunction in mice -A possible novel therapy for HFpEF. Cardiovasc Res. 2021;117:1325–1338. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nakata T, Shindo T, Ito K, Eguchi K, Monma Y, Ichijo S, et al. Beneficial effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on right ventricular dysfunction in animal models. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2022; in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Eguchi K, Shindo T, Ito K, Ogata T, Kurosawa R, Kagaya Y, et al. Whole-brain low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy markedly improves cognitive dysfunctions in mouse models of dementia—Crucial roles of endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Brain Stimul. 2018;11:959–973. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ichijo S, Shindo T, Eguchi K, Monma Y, Nakata T, Morisue Y, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy promotes recovery from stroke by enhancing angio-neurogenesis in mice in vivo. Sci Rep. 2021;11:4958. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84473-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shimokawa H, Shindo T, Ishiki A, Tomita N, Ichijyo S, Watanabe T, et al. A pilot study of whole-brain low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy for early stage of Alzheimer’s disease (LIPUS-AD): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2022;258:167–175. doi: 10.1620/tjem.2022.J078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marc W Merx

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

21 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-33081A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Pilot Trial of Low-intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy for Refractory Angina PectorisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shimokawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that thorouhgly addresses all the points raised during the review process and detailed below.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 05 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marc W. Merx, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the original protocol that you have uploaded as a Supporting Information file contains an institutional logo. As this logo is likely copyrighted, we ask that you please remove it from this file and upload an updated version upon resubmission.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses an interesting topic. The collected data are original and the methods employed to the analysis are rather sound. Some comments follow.

1. The data are not fully available. This is not in line with the journal's standard and, more importantly, this does not allow the reviewer to check for the correctness of the results. Publicly available data allows for the reproducibility of the work. The code used to obtain the results in the paper should also be provided.

2. The sample size is rather small. I am wondering if the assumptions underlying the employed parametric tests are met. Please, provide evidence that all the assumptions (e.g. Normality, homoschedasticity, etc.) are met.

3. The use of a competing risk models is sound overall, but should be better justified and discussed. A little-known limitation of this approach is that, for some subjects and for some time points, the sum of the subject-specific probabilities for the different event types can exceed one; this issue should be acknowledged and discussed. The very low number of events strongly limits the usefulness of the analysis: I am really doubtful on the need of this modelling as adverse events are almost null.

4. Results should be better presente. For example, the authors should show the results of Gray’s test for

equality of CIFs across groups. A plot of estimated CIFs for each cause of failure–disease combination is also required. Computing confidence intervals provides useful information about uncertainty related to parameter estimates; a

pointwise confidence interval for CIF at some fixed timepoint can be obtained using the method proposed by Choudhur (Non-parametric confidence interval estimation for competing risks analysis: application to contraceptive data. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1129–1144)

Reviewer #2: In this small pilot trial, authors investigated the efficacy and safety of a low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy for patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG. Although this is an interesting paper, there are several issues that I am concerning about:

1. I do not understand what does it mean “patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG”. This should be clearly defined in the manuscript, as well as in the abstract.

2. In the Figure 1B follow-up was 12 months, whereas in Figures 2C and 2D, as well as in the Table 3 follow-up was 510 days? Therefore, median follow-up should be clearly defined in the manuscript, as well as in the abstract. Please, provide years or months instead of days in Figures 2C and 2D, as well as in the Table 3.

3. In the subheading “Endpoints”, the sentence “In table 2, we reported all the changes (delta) of variables between baseline and days after the initial implementation of treatment, including SDS, wall motion abnormalities at rest” is unnecessary.

4. The Table 1 is unclear. The table caption is insufficient.

Age, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, height and ejection fraction should be presented as a whole number rather than decimals.

Percent in all tables, manuscript and abstract should also be presented as a whole number.

For continuous variables, for example: instead of “Age, years,” it should stand “Age + SD, years”; or instead of “Height, cm”it should stand “Height + SD, cm”.

All categorical variables should be written as “Variable, n (%”), for example: “Hypertension, n (%)”, etc.

Also, provide full names of all abbreviations in the table legend. This also should be applied in all tables in the manuscript (Table 2 and Table 3).

5. What does it mean “NP” in the Figure 2B? Please, provide full names of all abbreviations in all figure legends.

6. Please, provide 95% CI in figures 2C and 2D, as well as in the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287714.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


4 May 2023

Responses to Reviewer 1

Manuscript: PONE-D-22-33081/R1

Authors: Shindo T, et al.

Title: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Pilot Trial of Low-intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy for Refractory Angina Pectoris

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic. The collected data are original and the methods employed to the analysis are rather sound. Some comments follow.

(Response)

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments on our work. In line with them, we have revised our manuscript. In order to facilitate the review process, we have shown the revised sentences in red in the revised manuscript.

1. The data are not fully available. This is not in line with the journal's standard and, more importantly, this does not allow the reviewer to check for the correctness of the results. Publicly available data allows for the reproducibility of the work. The code used to obtain the results in the paper should also be provided.

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this important comment. As pointed out by the Reviewer, we consent to the full disclosure of our data. In the revised manuscript, we have added this point to the Methods section as below.

(Methods section) (Page 7, para. 1, lines 11-12)

All the clinical data obtained in this trial can be disclosed upon appropriate request.

2. The sample size is rather small. I am wondering if the assumptions underlying the employed parametric tests are met. Please, provide evidence that all the assumptions (e.g. Normality, homoschedasticity, etc.) are met.

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this important comment. Regarding the assumptions (normality, homoschedasticity), based on the following Wilcoxon test and distribution, we believe that the assumptions used here were appropriate. As shown below, t-test was used for the primary endpoint and most of secondary endpoints because it was treated as a continuous quantity, and Wilcoxon's rank sum test (Mann–Whitney U test) was performed for CCS class score.

3. The use of a competing risk models is sound overall, but should be better justified and discussed. A little-known limitation of this approach is that, for some subjects and for some time points, the sum of the subject-specific probabilities for the different event types can exceed one; this issue should be acknowledged and discussed. The very low number of events strongly limits the usefulness of the analysis: I am really doubtful on the need of this modelling as adverse events are almost null.

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this important comment. As the Reviewer pointed out, the problem of cause-specific proportional hazards is that the independence of factors must be assumed. When the probability of occurrence of the event of interest is overestimated, it happens that the sum exceeds one. In this study, we used Gray's subdistribution hazards instead of cause-specific proportional hazards to avoid such problems. However, regarding the occurrence of competing risk events, only one or two deaths and discontinuation due to adverse events occurred, which was quite small. As a result, as the Reviewer pointed out, the need of using competing risk analysis has become less. In the revised manuscript, we have discussed this point as one of the study limitations as follows;

(Discussion section) (Page 15, para. 2, lines 8-11)

Fifth, regarding the occurrence of competing risk events, only one or two deaths and discontinuation due to adverse events occurred, which was quite small. As a result, the need of using competing risk analysis has become less.

4. Results should be better presented. For example, the authors should show the results of Gray’s test for equality of CIFs across groups. A plot of estimated CIFs for each cause of failure–disease combination is also required. Computing confidence intervals provides useful information about uncertainty related to parameter estimates; a pointwise confidence interval for CIF at some fixed timepoint can be obtained using the method proposed by Choudhur (Non-parametric confidence interval estimation for competing risks analysis: application to contraceptive data. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1129–1144).

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this valuable suggestion. In line with Reviewer's suggestion, we have performed estimation without using competing risk analysis and found that the occurrence of competing risks was slight and had little effect. Plots of all-cause mortality and MACE without competing risk analysis are shown below. We also have analyzed a pointwise confidence interval for CIF at some fixed timepoint, but the number was too small to find utility for competing risk analysis.

• All-cause death with and without competing risk analysis

• MACE with and without competing risk analysis

• Pointwise confidence interval for CIF at some fixed timepoint

All-cause death

MACE

Finally, we again would like to thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments on our work, which have greatly helped us improve our manuscript. We sincerely hope that our revised manuscript may again be considered for publication in the Journal.

Responses to Reviewer 2

Manuscript: PONE-D-22-33081/R1

Authors: Shindo T, et al.

Title: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Pilot Trial of Low-intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy for Refractory Angina Pectoris

In this small pilot trial, authors investigated the efficacy and safety of a low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy for patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG. Although this is an interesting paper, there are several issues that I am concerning about:

(Response)

We would like to appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments on our work. In line with the comments, we have revised our manuscript. In order to facilitate the review process, we have shown the revised sentences in red in the revised manuscript.

1. I do not understand what does it mean “patients with refractory angina without indication of PCI or CABG”. This should be clearly defined in the manuscript, as well as in the abstract.

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this comment. Specifically, on the premise that existing optimal medical therapy was performed, we enrolled patients in whom PCI or CABG was difficult to apply due to the lack of graftability or complexity of coronary lesions at the heart team conference. As the Reviewer pointed out, we have described this point in the revised manuscript as follows:

(Method section) (Page 6, para. 1, lines 3-6)

Specifically, on the premise that existing optimal medical therapy was performed, we enrolled patients in whom PCI or CABG was difficult to apply due to the lack of graftability or complexity of coronary lesions at the heart team conference.

(Abstract section) (Page 3, para. 2, lines 2-5)

The patients who received optimal medical therapy without indication of PCI or CABG due to the lack of graftability or complexity of coronary lesions were enrolled.

2. In the Figure 1B follow-up was 12 months, whereas in Figures 2C and 2D, as well as in the Table 3 follow-up was 510 days? Therefore, median follow-up should be clearly defined in the manuscript, as well as in the abstract. Please, provide years or months instead of days in Figures 2C and 2D, as well as in the Table 3.

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this important comment. The median follow-up period was 452 days for the LIPUS group and 449 days for the Placebo group. In the revised manuscript, these median values have been added to the Results section as follows. Also, in line with the Reviewer’s comment, the description of time has been changed from day to month in the Figures 2C, 2D, and Table 3.

(Results section) (Page 11, lines 18-19)

The median follow-up period was 452 days for the LIPUS group and 449 days for the placebo group.

3. In the subheading “Endpoints”, the sentence “In table 2, we reported all the changes (delta) of variables between baseline and days after the initial implementation of treatment, including SDS, wall motion abnormalities at rest” is unnecessary.

(Responses)

Thank you for this suggestion. Accordingly, we have removed this sentence in the revised manuscript.

4. The Table 1 is unclear. The table caption is insufficient. Age, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, height and ejection fraction should be presented as a whole number rather than decimals. Percent in all tables, manuscript and abstract should also be presented as a whole number. For continuous variables, for example: instead of “Age, years,” it should stand “Age + SD, years”; or instead of “Height, cm” it should stand “Height + SD, cm”. All categorical variables should be written as “Variable, n (%”), for example: “Hypertension, n (%)”, etc. Also, provide full names of all abbreviations in the table legend. This also should be applied in all tables in the manuscript (Table 2 and Table 3).

(Responses)

Thank you very much for this valuable comment. In line with the Reviewer’s comment, in the revised manuscript, we have revised Tables 1-3.

5. What does it mean “NP” in the Figure 2B? Please, provide full names of all abbreviations in all figure legends.

(Responses)

“NP” was used to denote no statistically significant difference was found, but we have removed that in the revised manuscript as it is misleading. In addition, we have provided full names of all abbreviations in all figure legends (page 25) and table legends (pages 21-24).

6. Please, provide 95% CI in figures 2C and 2D, as well as in the manuscript.

(Responses)

We agree with the Reviewer's comment. In the revised manuscript, we have added each 95%CI to Figures 2C and 2D in the revised figures.

Finally, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We believe that we have addressed the Reviewer’s comments and hope that revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication in the Journal.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Marc W Merx

12 Jun 2023

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Pilot Trial of Low-intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy for Refractory Angina Pectoris

PONE-D-22-33081R1

Dear Dr. Shimokawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marc W. Merx, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is significantly improved and could be published in the present form. Additionally, please provide the full name of abbreviation LIPUS in each table.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Marc W Merx

16 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-33081R1

A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Pilot Trial of Low-intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Therapy for Refractory Angina Pectoris

Dear Dr. Shimokawa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. Marc W. Merx

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

    (DOC)

    S2 Checklist. PLOS ONE clinical studies checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Representative myocardial perfusion images.

    Myocardial perfusion images in a representative case in response to the LIPUS therapy.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Post-hoc analysis of the LIPUS therapy on objective outcome.

    Correlation between the extent of baseline myocardial ischemia and that of post-treatment changes in myocardial ischemia evaluated by stress myocardial perfusion imaging. LIPUS: low-intensity pulsed ultrasound.

    (PDF)

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    S2 File

    (DOCX)

    S3 File

    (PDF)

    S4 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine (8122-717-7153).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES