Literature DB >> 30652394

Cardiac contractility modulation improves long-term survival and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Stefan D Anker1,2, Martin Borggrefe3,4,5, Hans Neuser6, Marc-Alexander Ohlow7, Susanne Röger3,4,5, Andreas Goette8,9, Bjoern A Remppis10, Karl-Heinz Kuck11, Kevin B Najarian12, David D Gutterman13, Benny Rousso14, Daniel Burkhoff15, Gerd Hasenfuss2.   

Abstract

AIMS: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improves symptoms and exercise tolerance and reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalizations over 6-month follow-up in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms, QRS < 130 ms and 25% ≤ left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45% (FIX-HF-5C study). The current prospective registry study (CCM-REG) aimed to assess the longer-term impact of CCM on hospitalizations and mortality in real-world experience in this same population. METHODS AND
RESULTS: A total of 140 patients with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% receiving CCM therapy (CCM-REG25-45 ) for clinical indications were included. Cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) and NYHA class were assessed over 2 years. Mortality was tracked through 3 years and compared with predictions by the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM). A separate analysis was performed on patients with 35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% (CCM-REG35-45 ) and 25% ≤ LVEF < 35% (CCM-REG25-34 ). Hospitalizations decreased by 75% (from 1.2/patient-year the year before, to 0.35/patient-year during the 2 years following CCM, P < 0.0001) in CCM-REG25-45 and by a similar amount in CCM-REG35-45 (P < 0.0001) and CCM-REG25-34 . MLHFQ and NYHA class improved in all three cohorts, with progressive improvements over time (P < 0.002). Three-year survival in CCM-REG25-45 (82.8%) and CCM-REG24-34 (79.4%) were similar to those predicted by SHFM (76.7%, P = 0.16; 78.0%, P = 0.81, respectively) and was better than predicted in CCM-REG35-45 (88.0% vs. 74.7%, P = 0.046).
CONCLUSION: In real-world experience, CCM produces results similar to those of previous studies in subjects with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45% and QRS < 130 ms; cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations are reduced and MLHFQ and NYHA class are improved. Overall mortality was comparable to that predicted by the SHFM but was lower than predicted in patients with 35% ≤ LVEF ≤ 45%.
© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hospitalizations; Left ventricular ejection fraction; Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; Survival

Year:  2019        PMID: 30652394     DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.1374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail        ISSN: 1388-9842            Impact factor:   15.534


  10 in total

1.  Should HFrEF patients with NYHA class II expect benefit from CCM therapy? Results from the MAINTAINED observational study.

Authors:  Christian Fastner; Goekhan Yuecel; Svetlana Hetjens; Boris Rudic; Gereon Schmiel; Matthias Toepel; Volker Liebe; Mathieu Kruska; Martin Borggrefe; Daniel Burkhoff; Ibrahim Akin; Daniel Duerschmied; Juergen Kuschyk
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2022-09-03       Impact factor: 6.138

Review 2.  Innovations in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

Authors:  Khurrum Khan; Jitae A Kim; Andra Gurgu; Muzamil Khawaja; Dragos Cozma; Mihail G Chelu
Journal:  Cardiovasc Drugs Ther       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.947

3.  Outcomes of Cardiac Contractility Modulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Ramy Mando; Akshay Goel; Fuad Habash; Marwan Saad; Karam Ayoub; Srikanth Vallurupalli; Waddah Maskoun
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 3.023

4.  Cost-effectiveness of a cardiac contractility modulation device in heart failure with normal QRS duration.

Authors:  Klaus Witte; Gerd Hasenfuss; Axel Kloppe; Daniel Burkhoff; Michelle Green; Joe Moss; Alison Peel; Stuart Mealing; Isabelle Durand Zaleski; Martin R Cowie
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2019-12

5.  Matching Imaging and Remodulation Effects: Benefits of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Shown by Global Longitudinal Strain: A Case Report.

Authors:  Andrea Matteucci; Giacomo Bonacchi; Vincenzo M La Fazia; Giuseppe Stifano; Domenico Sergi
Journal:  Clin Pract       Date:  2022-02-17

6.  A Multistep Approach to Deal With Advanced Heart Failure: A Case Report on the Positive Effect of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy on Pulmonary Pressure Measured by CardioMEMS.

Authors:  Valeria Visco; Cristina Esposito; Michele Manzo; Antonio Fiorentino; Gennaro Galasso; Carmine Vecchione; Michele Ciccarelli
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-04-04

Review 7.  A year in heart failure: an update of recent findings.

Authors:  Lorenzo Stretti; Dauphine Zippo; Andrew J S Coats; Markus S Anker; Stephan von Haehling; Marco Metra; Daniela Tomasoni
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2021-12-16

8.  The Effects of Device-Based Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy on Left Ventricle Global Longitudinal Strain and Myocardial Mechano-Energetic Efficiency in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Authors:  Daniele Masarone; Michelle M Kittleson; Stefano De Vivo; Antonio D'Onofrio; Ernesto Ammendola; Gerardo Nigro; Carla Contaldi; Maria L Martucci; Vittoria Errigo; Giuseppe Pacileo
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-10-04       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 9.  Cardiac contractility modulation for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Authors:  Peysh A Patel; Ramesh Nadarajah; Noman Ali; John Gierula; Klaus K Witte
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2020-08-27       Impact factor: 4.214

10.  Cardiac contractility modulation attenuates structural and electrical remodeling in a chronic heart failure rabbit model.

Authors:  Bin Ning; Feifei Zhang; Xuelian Song; Qingqing Hao; Yingxiao Li; Rong Li; Yi Dang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 1.671

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.