Key result
In a network meta-analysis of 10,125 participants, BAT ranked highest for improving LVEF and quality of life, CCM for reducing heart failure hospitalizations, and CRT for peak oxygen consumption.
Why the study?
The comparative effectiveness of BAT, CCM, and CRT across structural, functional, and clinical outcomes in HFrEF remains uncertain.
Do device-based therapies (BAT, CCM, CRT) improve structural, functional, and clinical outcomes compared to guideline-directed medical therapy in adults with HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%)?
Meta-Analysis (n=10,125)
Do device-based therapies (BAT, CCM, CRT) improve structural, functional, and clinical outcomes compared to guideline-directed medical therapy in adults with HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%)?
BAT, CCM, and CRT offer distinct and complementary benefits beyond GDMT in HFrEF, supporting a phenotype-guided approach to device therapy.
Supports phenotype-guided device selection in HFrEF; extends RCT meta-analysis evidence for complementary benefits of BAT, CCM, and CRT beyond GDMT.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains a major global health burden despite advances in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Device-based therapies-including baroreflex activation therapy (BAT), cardiac contractility modulation (CCM), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-target distinct autonomic, contractile, and electrical mechanisms. However, their comparative effectiveness across structural, functional, and clinical outcomes remains uncertain. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in accordance with PRISMA-NMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251087472). PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for trials enrolling adults with HFrEF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. Random-effects frequentist models were used, with GDMT as the reference comparator. Outcomes included change in LVEF, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, heart failure-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Treatment rankings were estimated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). RESULTS: Nineteen trials involving 10,125 participants were included. BAT ranked highest for improvement in LVEF, HRQoL, six-minute walk distance, and NYHA class. CRT demonstrated the greatest improvement in peak oxygen consumption, whereas CCM ranked best for reducing heart failure-related hospitalization. None of the device therapies significantly reduced all-cause mortality. Between-study heterogeneity was low to moderate, and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: BAT, CCM, and CRT provide complementary benefits beyond GDMT, supporting a phenotype-guided approach to device therapy in patients with HFrEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Basu-Ray et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=10,125). Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT), cardiac contractility modulation (CCM), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vs. Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was evaluated on Change in LVEF, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, NYHA functional class, heart failure-related hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. In a network meta-analysis of 10,125 participants, BAT ranked highest for improving LVEF and quality of life, CCM for reducing heart failure hospitalizations, and CRT for peak oxygen consumption.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: