Key result
CCM linked to greater LVEF and TAPSE recovery when baseline LVEF ≤30% without survival difference.
Why the study?
Cardiac contractility modulation can recover reduced LVEF, but the influence of pre-implantation LVEF on long-term outcomes is not fully understood.
Does baseline LVEF (≤30% vs ≥31%) influence long-term survival, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac contractility modulation therapy?
Comparison
Baseline LVEF <= 30% vs baseline LVEF >= 31%
Design
Retrospective single-centre registry study
Follow-up
Up to 5 years
Authors
Loading...
May support greater echocardiographic recovery with CCM in LVEF ≤30%; leaves open optimal patient selection.
Cohort (n=172)
No
Does baseline LVEF (≤30% vs ≥31%) influence long-term survival, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes in patients receiving cardiac contractility modulation therapy?
In patients receiving cardiac contractility modulation therapy, those with baseline LVEF ≤30% show better echocardiographic recovery, though clinical improvements and survival are comparable regardless of baseline LVEF.
Yücel et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in symptomatic chronic heart failure (n=172). Cardiac contractility modulation (baseline LVEF ≤ 30%) vs. Cardiac contractility modulation (baseline LVEF ≥ 31%) was evaluated on Survival, echocardiographic and clinical parameters (LVEF, TAPSE, NYHA class, MLWHFQ). Cardiac contractility modulation in patients with baseline LVEF ≤30% yielded significantly better recovery of LVEF and TAPSE than in those with LVEF ≥31%, with no difference in long-term survival.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: