Key result
Cardiac contractility modulation significantly improved peak oxygen consumption and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores compared to sham treatment (P=0.03 for each).
Why the study?
Does cardiac contractility modulation improve peak oxygen consumption and quality of life in patients with symptomatic heart failure and EF < 35%?
RCT (n=164)
Double-blind
Crossover
Does cardiac contractility modulation improve peak oxygen consumption and quality of life in patients with symptomatic heart failure and EF < 35%?
p-value: p=0.03
In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, cardiac contractility modulation significantly improves exercise tolerance and quality of life compared to sham treatment.
Supports consideration of CCM in symptomatic HFrEF; confirms sham-controlled benefits on exercise capacity and quality of life.
AIMS: We performed a randomized, double blind, crossover study of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) signals in heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four subjects with ejection fraction (EF) < 35% and NYHA Class II (24%) or III (76%) symptoms received a CCM pulse generator. Patients were randomly assigned to Group 1 (n = 80, CCM treatment 3 months, sham treatment second 3 months) or Group 2 (n = 84, sham treatment 3 months, CCM treatment second 3 months). The co-primary endpoints were changes in peak oxygen consumption (VO2,peak) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ). Baseline EF (29.3 +/- 6.7% vs. 29.8 +/- 7.8%), VO2,peak (14.1 +/- 3.0 vs. 13.6 +/- 2.7 mL/kg/min), and MLWHFQ (38.9 +/- 27.4 vs. 36.5 +/- 27.1) were similar between the groups. VO2,peak increased similarly in both groups during the first 3 months (0.40 +/- 3.0 vs. 0.37 +/- 3.3 mL/kg/min, placebo effect). During the next 3 months, VO2,peak decreased in the group switched to sham (-0.86 +/- 3.06 mL/kg/min) and increased in patients switched to active treatment (0.16 +/- 2.50 mL/kg/min). MLWHFQ trended better with treatment (-12.06 +/- 15.33 vs. -9.70 +/- 16.71) during the first 3 months, increased during the second 3 months in the group switched to sham (+4.70 +/- 16.57), and decreased further in patients switched to active treatment (-0.70 +/- 15.13). A comparison of values at the end of active treatment periods vs. end of sham treatment periods indicates statistically significantly improved VO2,peak and MLWHFQ (P = 0.03 for each parameter). CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, CCM signals appear safe; exercise tolerance and quality of life (MLWHFQ) were significantly better while patients were receiving active treatment with CCM for a 3-month period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Borggrefe et al. (2008) conducted an RCT in Symptomatic heart failure (n=164). Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) vs. Sham treatment was evaluated on Changes in peak oxygen consumption (VO2,peak) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (p=0.03). Cardiac contractility modulation significantly improved peak oxygen consumption and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire scores compared to sham treatment (P=0.03 for each).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: