Table 3.

Summary of clinical trials of ECWT for the treatment of ischemic heart disease

Trial	Patients (number)	Patient population	Trial type	CCS class	NTG use (per week)	EF (%)	6MWT (meters)	NYHA class	Nuclear imaging outcomes
Fukumoto, et al. 2006 (26)	9	End-stage CAD	Series	2.7 to 1.8**	5.4 to 0.3*	n/a	n/a	n/a	Improved SSS* but not SRS (NS) by stress thallium scan
Gutersohn, et al. 2006 (29)	14	End-stage CAD	Series	3.4 to 2.4 ***	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Improved perfusion by SPECT
Kikuchi, et al. 2010 (27)	8	End-stage CAD	Randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-overa	3.0 to 2.3**	4.1 to 0.9**	51 to 56*	200 to 330**	n/a	n/a
Vasyuk, et al. 2010 (28)	24	Ischemic cardiomyopathy (EF<40 %)	Seriesb	2.6 to 1.9 **	n/a	32 to 38*	414 to 538**	2.2 to 1.7**	Improved SRS* and SSS* by stress SPECT
Wang, et al. 2010 (30)	25 (and 10 controls)	CAD with chronic stable angina	Case–control	Improved	Improved	n/a	Improved	Improved*	Improved perfusion on rest SPECT**
Peng, et al. 2012 (31)	50	Ischemic cardiomyopathy	Randomized, placebo-controlledc	Improved**	Improved**	45 to 47**	Improved*	Improved**	Improved perfusion** and viability* on rest SPECT/PET
Yang, et al. 2012 (32)	25	CAD without prior revascularization	Randomized, placebo-controlledc	2.0 to 1.0*	2.0 to 1.0**	51 to 56*	383 to 438*	2.0 to 1.0*	Improved perfusion*** and viability** on rest SPECT/PET

CCS Canadian Cardiovascular Society (angina class), NTG nitroglycerine, EF ejection fraction, 6MWT 6-minute walk test, NYHA New York Heart Association, CAD coronary artery disease, NS p >0.05, SSS summed stress score, SRS summed rest score, SPECT single photon emission computed tomography, PET positron emission tomography

^*p <0.05

^**p <0.01

^***p <0.001

^aNo significant change in endpoints pre- and post-treatment in control group

^bNo significant change in endpoints pre- and post-placebo treatment

^cComparison of all endpoints between post-treatment ECWT and placebo groups p <0.05