Clinical effects of long-term cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) in subjects with heart failure caused by left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Beyond Medical Therapy-An Update on Heart Failure Devices

Heart failure (HF) is a complex and progressive disease marked by substantial morbidity and mortality rates, frequent episodes of decompensation, and a reduced quality of life (QoL), with severe financial burden on healthcare systems. In recent years, several large-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have widely expanded the therapeutic armamentarium, underlining additional benefits and the feasibility of rapid titration regimens. This notwithstanding, mortality is not declining, and hospitalizations are constantly increasing. It is widely acknowledged that even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on board, HF patients have a prohibitive residual risk, which highlights the need for innovative treatment options. In this scenario, groundbreaking devices targeting valvular, structural, and autonomic abnormalities have become crucial tools in HF management. This has led to a full-fledged translational boost with several novel devices in development. Thus, the aim of this review is to provide an update on both approved and investigated devices.

HF Etiology and cardiac contractility modulation therapy

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) depending on HF etiology.

METHODS

We enrolled 166 patients with optimal medical therapy-resistant HFrEF (median age 59 years, 83.7% males, median NYHA class - 2, median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) - 29.0%) who underwent CCM therapy device implantation from 2013 to 2019 in four medical centers in Russia. The HF etiology was determined based on invasive coronary angiography or cardiac MRI data. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 6-minute walking test (6MWT), and NTproBNP-tests were performed at a baseline and 12 months after the implantation.

RESULTS

The ischemic etiology of HF was revealed in 100 patients (61.5%) (ICM group); the non-ischemic group (NICM) evolved 66 patients (38.5%). Patients in the ICM group were significantly older (61[57-69] vs. 55 [42.8-61], p < 0.001), more frequently had hypertension (79% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (43% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.012). Patients in the NICM group had significantly more often atrial fibrillation (AF) (58% vs. 74%, p = 0.048), larger end-diastolic volume (EDV) (249 [208-309] vs. 220 [192-271], p = 0.019) and end-systolic volume (ESV) (183 [147-230] vs. 154 [128-199], p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in mortality between ICM and NICM groups (14.4 vs. 10.8%, p = 0.51). In 12 months, there was a significant increase in LVEF in the NICM group (+ 2.0 [2-6] vs. +7.7 [2-12], p < 0.001), while the improvement in the 6MWT (+ 75 [22-108] vs. +80 [10-160], p = 0.851) and NYHA class did not reach the level of significance. The subanalysis between patients with improved NYHA class and those without improvement revealed that patients without improvement more frequently had AF (56% vs. 89%; p < 0.01), chronic obstructive lung disease (18% vs. 35% p = 0.047), higher blood pressure (110 [105-120] vs. 120[110-129]; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter retrospective study, patients with non-ischemic HFrEF showed a significantly higher improvement in LVEF and LV reverse remodeling following CCM therapy device implantation. There was no significant association between HF etiology and survival in drug-resistant HFrEF patients following CCM therapy.

Cardiac contractility modulation in patients with heart failure - A review of the literature

Experimental in vivo and in vitro studies showed that electric currents applied during the absolute refractory period can modulate cardiac contractility. In preclinical studies, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) was found to improve calcium handling, reverse the foetal myocyte gene programming associated with heart failure (HF), and facilitate reverse remodeling. Randomized control trials and observational studies have provided evidence about the safety and efficacy of CCM in patients with HF. Clinically, CCM therapy is indicated to improve the 6-min hall walk, quality of life, and functional status of HF patients who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment without an indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ranging from 25 to 45%. Although there are promising results about the role of CCM in HF patients with preserved LVEF (HFpEF), further studies are needed to elucidate the role of CCM therapy in this population. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) assessment before CCM implantation has been proposed for guiding the lead placement. Furthermore, the optimal duration of CCM application needs further investigation. This review aims to present the existing evidence regarding the role of CCM therapy in HF patients and identify gaps and challenges that require further studies.

Device therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Device therapy is a nonpharmacological approach that presents a crucial advancement for managing patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This review investigated the impact of device-based interventions and emphasized their potential for optimizing treatment for this complex patient demographic. Cardiac resynchronization therapy, augmented by atrioventricular node ablation with His-bundle pacing or left bundle-branch pacing, is effective for enhancing cardiac function and establishing atrioventricular synchrony. Cardiac contractility modulation and vagus nerve stimulation represent novel strategies for increasing myocardial contractility and adjusting the autonomic balance. Left ventricular expanders have demonstrated short-term benefits in HFpEF patients but require more investigation for long-term effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with AF. Research gaps regarding complications arising from left ventricular expander implantation need to be addressed. Device-based therapies for heart valve diseases, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair, show promise for patients with AF and HFpEF, particularly those with mitral or tricuspid regurgitation. Clinical evaluations show that these device therapies lessen AF occurrence, improve exercise tolerance, and boost left ventricular diastolic function. However, additional studies are required to perfect patient selection criteria and ascertain the long-term effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Our review underscores the significant potential of device therapy for improving the outcomes and quality of life for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Cardiac Contractility Modulation for Heart Failure: Current and Future Directions

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a Food and Drug Administration-approved device-based therapy for patients with heart failure. The system delivers biphasic electric stimulation to the ventricular myocardium during the absolute refractory period to augment left ventricular contraction. CCM therapy promotes acute and chronic changes at the cellular level, leading to favorable remodeling throughout the myocardium. CCM improves quality of life, New York Heart Association class, left ventricular ejection fraction, peak oxygen uptake, and the composite end point of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations. This review will focus on the biological basis, indications, and evidence for CCM, as well as the future applications of this technology.

Efficacy of the New Inotropic Agent Istaroxime in Acute Heart Failure

Current therapeutic strategies for acute heart failure (AHF) are based on traditional inotropic agents that are often associated with untoward effects; therefore, finding new effective approaches with a safer profile is dramatically needed. Istaroxime is a novel compound, chemically unrelated to cardiac glycosides, that is currently being studied for the treatment of AHF. Its effects are essentially related to its inotropic and lusitropic positive properties exerted through a dual mechanism of action: activation of the sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ ATPase isoform 2a (SERCA2a) and inhibition of the Na+/K+-ATPase (NKA) activity. The advantages of istaroxime over the available inotropic agents include its lower arrhythmogenic action combined with its capability of increasing systolic blood pressure without augmenting heart rate. However, it has a limited half-life (1 hour) and is associated with adverse effects including pain at the injection site and gastrointestinal issues. Herein, we describe the main mechanism of action of istaroxime and we present a systematic overview of both clinical and preclinical trials testing this drug, underlining the latest insights regarding its adoption in clinical practice for AHF.

Improved Physical Function After Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy in 10 Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

A new generation of therapeutic devices has expanded the options for managing advanced heart failure. We examined the outcomes of cardiac contractility therapy in a series of 10 patients with chronic heart failure.

METHODS

Ten patients with chronic heart failure were nonrandomly selected to receive cardiac contractility modulation therapy. Hemodynamics, left ventricular ejection fraction, functional capacity, and clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months of therapy.

RESULTS

Eight male and 2 female patients (mean [SD] age, 63.4 [9.4] years) received cardiac contractility modulation therapy. Between baseline and 6-month follow-up, mean (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction improved from 27.1% (4.18%) to 35.1% (9.89%), New York Heart Association class declined from 3.9 (0.32) to 2.44 (0.52), and 6-minute walk test distance increased from 159.2 (93.79) m to 212.4 (87.24) m. Furthermore, the mean (SD) number of hospital admissions within the 6 months before cardiac contractility modulation therapy was 2.4 (2.27) compared with 1 (1.52) during the 6 months after therapy.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac contractility modulation therapy improved physical functioning and reduced hospital admissions in these patients.

Cardiac contractility modulation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment

Heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) (HFrEF) is a significant issue of health care due to increasing indexes of morbidity and mortality. The emergence of a number of drugs and implantable devices for the treatment of HFrEF has allowed improvement of patients’ well-being and prognosis. However, high mortality and recurrent decompensated heart failure remain a substantial issue and stimulate the search for new methods of CHF treatment. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a method of managing patients with HFrEF. Available data from randomized clinical trials (RCT) indicate the efficacy of CCM in improvement of patients’ well-being and quality of life. The question remains open: what effect does CCM have on LV reverse remodeling? Experimental data and results of observational studies suggest a possibility of reverse remodeling by CCM; however, this has not been confirmed in RCT. Also, it remains unclear how CCM influences the frequency of hospitalizations for decompensated heart failure and the death rate of patients with HFrEF. Results of both RCTs and observational studies have shown a moderate improvement of quality of life associated with CCM. Furthermore, RCTs have not found any increase in LV EF due to the therapy, nor has a meta-analysis of RCTs revealed any improvement of the prognosis associated with CCM.  Further RCTs are needed to evaluate the effect of CCM on reverse remodeling, survival rate, and to determine the place of CCM in the treatment of patients with CHF.

Impact of baseline left ventricular ejection fraction on long-term outcomes in cardiac contractility modulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM), being reserved for patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) and narrow QRS complex under guideline directed medical therapy, can recover initially reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); however, the influence of pre-implantation LVEF on long-term outcomes is not fully understood. This study aimed to compare the effects of lower and higher pre-implantation LVEF on long-term outcomes in CCM-therapy.

METHODS

One-hundred seventy-two patients from our single-centre registry were retrospectively included (2002 - 2019). Follow-up data were collected up to five years after implantation. Patients were divided into Group 1 (baseline LVEF≤ 30%) and Group 2 (≥ 31%). Both groups were compared based on differences in survival, echocardiographic- and clinical parameters including LVEF, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), NYHA class or Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire-score (MLWHFQ).

RESULTS

11 % of the patients did have a LVEF ≥ 31%. Mean LVEF±SD for both groups were 21.98±5.4 vs. 35.2±3.7%, respectively. MLWHFQ (47±21.2 vs. 42±21.4) and mean peak oxygen consumption (VO2, 13.6±4.1 vs. 12.7±2.8 ml/kg/min) were comparable between both groups. LVEF-grouping did not influence survival. Lower baseline LVEF resulted in significantly better recovery of echocardiographic parameters such as LVEF and TAPSE. Irrespective from baseline LVEF, both groups showed nearly comparable improvements for clinical parameters like NYHA-class and MLWHFQ.

CONCLUSION

Long-term biventricular systolic recovery potential in CCM-therapy might be better for pre-implantation LVEF values ≤ 30%, whereas clinical parameters such as NYHA-class can improve irrespective from baseline LVEF. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Novel Non-pharmaceutical Advancements in Heart Failure Management: The Emerging Role of Technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarise and discuss the implications of recent technological advances in heart failure care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Heart failure remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality in the US population despite multiple classes of approved pharmacological treatments. Novel cardiac devices and technologies may offer an opportunity to improve outcomes. Baroreflex Activation Therapy and Cardiac Contractility Remodelling may improve myocardial contractility by altering neurohormonal stimulation of the heart. Implantable Pulmonary Artery Monitors and Biatrial Shunts may prevent heart failure admissions by altering the trajectory of progressive congestion. Phrenic Nerve Stimulation offers potentially effective treatment for comorbid conditions. Smartphone applications offer an intriguing strategy for improving medication adherence.

SUMMARY

Novel heart failure technologies offer promise for reducing this public health burden. Randomized controlled studies are indicated for assessing the future role of these novel therapies.

Reverse remodeling against the background of cardiac contractility modulation therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation

Aim. To study myocardial remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) against the background of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy.

Material and methods. In a group of 100 patients with HFrEF and AF, transthoracic echocardiography was performed before CCM device implantation and after 2, 6 and 12 months. All patients received longterm optimal medical therapy for HF before surgery.

Results. Against the background of CCM therapy, there was a  significant increase in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, a decrease in LV volume and linear dimensions, a decrease in left atrial volume in patients with coronary and non-coronary HFrEF, with an initial LVEF < and >35%, and also regardless of AF type.

Conclusion. CCM therapy in patients with HFrEF and AF led to favorable myocardial remodeling changes. Further study of CCM effect on  echocardiographic parameters in randomized clinical trials is needed.

Emerging Implantable Device Technology for Patients at the Intersection of Electrophysiology and Heart Failure Interdisciplinary Care

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), are part of guideline- indicated treatment for a subset of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Current technological advancements in CIEDs have allowed the detection of specific patient physiologic parameters used for forecasting clinical decompensation through algorithmic, multiparameter remote monitoring. Other recent emerging technologies, including cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) and baroreflex activation therapy (BAT), may provide symptomatic or physiologic benefit in patients without an indication for CRT. Our goal in this state-of-the-art review is to describe the commercially available new technologies, purported mechanisms of action, evidence surrounding their clinical role, limitations, and future directions. Finally, we underline the need for standardized workflow and close interdisciplinary management of this population to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.

Similarities and Differences Between HFmrEF and HFpEF

The new guidelines classify heart failure (HF) into three subgroups based on the ejection fraction (EF): HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). The new guidelines regarding the declaration of HFmrEF as a unique phenotype have achieved the goal of stimulating research on the basic characteristics, pathophysiology, and treatment of HF patients with a left ventricular EF of 40-49%. Patients with HFmrEF have more often been described as an intermediate population between HFrEF and HFpEF patients; however, with regard to etiology and clinical indicators, they are more similar to the HFrEF population. Concerning clinical prognosis, they are closer to HFpEF because both populations have a good prognosis and quality of life. Meanwhile, growing evidence indicates that HFmrEF and HFpEF show heterogeneity in presentation and pathophysiology, and the emergence of this heterogeneity often plays a crucial role in the prognosis and treatment of the disease. To date, the exact mechanisms and effective treatment strategies of HFmrEF and HFpEF are still poorly understood, but some of the current evidence, from observational studies and post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials, have shown that patients with HFmrEF may benefit more from HFrEF treatment strategies, such as beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sacubitril/valsartan. This review summarizes available data from current clinical practice and mechanistic studies in terms of epidemiology, etiology, clinical indicators, mechanisms, and treatments to discuss the potential association between HFmrEF and HFpEF patients.

Optimizer Smart System for the treatment of chronic heart failure: Overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Despite the significant progress in the prevention and treatment of HF, mortality rates still remain high. Device therapy for HF includes cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and the use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Recently, a new device therapy for the treatment of HF became available, called cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). CCM is a new device therapy for patients with HF who do not qualify for CRT. It is implanted in a minimally invasive manner to improve the patient's morbidity. Optimizer Smart System is a new device that delivers CCM therapy.Areas covered: We review the function of the Optimizer Smart System, the data from the recent clinical trials, and discuss its efficacy and future projections in the treatment for HF.Expert opinion: CCM therapy provided with the Optimizer® Smart System is safe, feasible, and applicable to a wide range of patients with HF. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the Optimizer Smart System's use merits further large multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Patients with Ischemic versus Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Results from the MAINTAINED Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an FDA-approved device-based therapy for patients with systolic heart failure and normal QRS width who are symptomatic despite optimal drug therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term therapeutic effects of CCM therapy in patients with ischemic (ICM) versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).

METHODS

Changes in NYHA class, KDIGO CKD stage, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), and NT-proBNP levels were compared as functional parameters. Moreover, observed mortality rates at 1 and 3 years were compared to those predicted by the MAGGIC heart failure risk score, and observed mortality rates were compared between groups for the entire follow-up period.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-four consecutive patients with chronic heart failure and CCM device implantation between 2002 and 2019 were included in this retrospective analysis. LVEF was significantly higher in NICM patients after 3 years of CCM therapy (35 ± 9 vs. 30 ± 9%; p = 0.0211), and after 5 years, also TAPSE of NICM patients was significantly higher (21 ± 5 vs. 18 ± 5%; p = 0.0437). There were no differences in other effectiveness parameters. Over the entire follow-up period, 35% of all patients died (p = 0.81); only in ICM patients, mortality was lower than predicted at 3 years (35 vs. 43%, p = 0.0395).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding improvement of biventricular systolic function, patients with NICM appear to benefit particularly from CCM therapy.

Cardio-microcurrent device for chronic heart failure: first-in-human clinical study

AIMS

Most devices for treating ambulatory Class II and III heart failure are linked to electrical pulses. However, a steady electric potential gradient is also necessary for appropriate myocardial performance and may be disturbed by structural heart diseases. We investigated whether chronic application of electrical microcurrent to the heart is feasible and safe and improves cardiac performance. The results of this study should provide guidance for the design of a two-arm, randomized, controlled Phase II trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This single-arm, non-randomized pilot study involved 10 patients (9 men; mean age, 62 ± 12 years) at two sites with 6 month follow-up. All patients had New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure and non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%. A device was surgically placed to deliver a constant microcurrent to the heart. The following tests were performed at baseline, at hospital discharge, and at six time points during follow-up: determination of LVEF and left ventricular end-diastolic/end-systolic diameter by echocardiography; the 6 min walk test; and assessment of NYHA classification and quality of life (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire). Microcurrent application was feasible and safe; no device-related or treatment-related adverse events occurred. During follow-up, rapid and significant signal of efficacy (P < 0.005) was present with improvements in LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, and distance walked. For eight patients, NYHA classification improved from Class III to Class I (for seven, as early as 14 days post-operatively); for one, to Class II; and for one, to Class II/III. 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire scores also improved highly significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic application of microcurrent to the heart is feasible and safe and leads to a rapid and lasting improvement in heart function and a near normalization of heart size within days. The NYHA classification and quality of life improve just as rapidly.

How many patients with heart failure are eligible for cardiac contractility modulation therapy?

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence exists suggesting that cardiac contractility modulation therapy (CCM) improves symptoms in heart failure patients if various selection criteria are fulfilled. The aim of this study is to analyse an unselected sample of heart failure patients to establish what percentage of patients would meet the current criteria for CCM therapy.

METHODS

All patients admitted to two district general hospitals in the UK in 2018 with a diagnosis of heart failure were audited for eligibility for CCM therapy. The selection criteria were (a) ejection fraction (EF) 25%-45%, (b) QRS duration less than 130 ms, (c) New York Heart Association (NYHA) class 3-4 and (d) treated for heart failure for at least 90 days and on stable medications. Exclusion criteria included: (a) significant valvular disease, (b) permanent or persistent atrial fibrillation, (c) biventricular pacing system implanted or QRS duration more than 130 ms and (4) patients not suitable for device therapy as a result of palliative treatment intent.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients were admitted with heart failure during the study period. From this group, 24 (5.1%) patients fulfilled the criteria for CCM therapy. The mean age and ejection fraction were 70.8 ± 10.2 and 32.5% ± 7.4%. The majority of patients were men (71%) and had an ischaemic cardiomyopathy (75%). If patients with atrial fibrillation were included, an additional 18 (3.8%) patients potentially may be eligible for CCM.

CONCLUSION

Only 5.1% of all patients presenting with heart failure might benefit from cardiac CCM. This is a small proportion of the overall heart failure population. However, this population has no other current option for device therapy of their condition.

Cardiac contractility modulation for the treatment of moderate to severe HF

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) affects over 6 million Americans and approximately 650,000 new cases are diagnosed annually, with patients evenly split between HFrEF and HFpEF. Recent advances in therapy for these patients have been limited to pharmaceutical agents, with CRT remaining the most reliable device therapy option since its advent almost twenty years ago. In 2019, after almost two decades without the introduction of a new device therapy for the treatment of moderate HF, the FDA approved CCM® therapy, delivered by the Optimizer Smart device, for patients with NYHA Class III HF who are on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), in normal sinus rhythm (NSR), and with EF ranging from 25% to 45%, and who are ineligible for CRT.Areas covered: Multiple clinical trials support the use of CCM to improve quality of life, functional class, and 6-min hall walk distance. This article will discuss the science behind CCM therapy, the presumed mechanisms of action, the pre-clinical studies that shaped subsequent endeavors, and the clinical trials that support its use.Expert opinion: The introduction of CCM therapy bridges a therapeutic gap for patients with few or no other therapeutic options for NYHA III heart failure.

A comprehensive individual patient data meta-analysis of the effects of cardiac contractility modulation on functional capacity and heart failure-related quality of life

Aims

Cardiac contractility modulation, also referred to as CCM™, has emerged as a promising device treatment for heart failure (HF) in patients not indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy. We performed a comprehensive individual patient data meta‐analysis of all non‐confounded prospective randomized controlled trials of CCM vs. control that have measured functional capacity and/or quality of life questionnaires in patients with HF.

Methods and results

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched in January 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. We also asked the sole manufacturer of the device for their list of known trials. Primary outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO₂), 6 min walk test distance, and quality of life measured by Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ), and all data were received as individual patient and individual time point data‐points. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data using a fixed‐effects model. Five trials were identified, four randomized studies enrolling 801 participants for all endpoints of interest, and for peak VO₂ alone (n = 60), there was an additional single arm non‐randomized trial (FIX‐HF‐5C2) with a prospective comparison of its 24 week peak VO₂ data compared with the control group of the FIX‐HF‐5C control patients. Pooled analysis showed that, compared with control, CCM significantly improved peak VO₂ (mean difference +0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.30 mL/kg/min, P < 0.00001), 6 min walk test distance (mean difference +17.97, 95% CI 5.48 to 30.46 m, P = 0.005), and quality of life measured by MLWHFQ (mean difference −7.85, 95% CI −10.76 to −4.94, P < 0.00001). As a sensitivity analysis, we excluded the FIX‐HF‐5C2 trial (only relevant for peak VO₂), and the result was similar, mean difference +0.65, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.08 mL/kg/min, P = 0.004.

Conclusions

This comprehensive meta‐analysis of individual patient data from all known randomized trials has shown that CCM provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefits in measures of functional capacity and HF‐related quality of life.

Safety, Performance, and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Delivered by the 2-Lead Optimizer Smart System

Background:

Prior studies of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) employed a 3-lead Optimizer system. A new 2-lead system eliminated the need for an atrial lead. This study tested the safety and effectiveness of this 2-lead system compared with the 3-lead system.

Methods:

Patients with New York Heart Association III/IVa symptoms despite medical therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction 25% to 45%, and not eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy could participate. All subjects received an Optimizer 2-lead implant. The primary end point was the estimated difference in the change of peak VO 2 from baseline to 24 weeks between FIX-HF-5C2 (2-lead system) subjects relative to control subjects from the prior FIX-HF-5C (3-lead system) study. Changes in New York Heart Association were a secondary end point. The primary safety end point was a comparison of device-related adverse events between FIX-HF-5C2 and FIX-HF-5C subjects.

Results:

Sixty subjects, 88% male, 66±9 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction 34±6% were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between FIX-HF-5C and FIX-HF-5C2 subjects except that 15% of FIX-HF-5C2 subjects had permanent atrial fibrillation versus 0% in FIX-HF-5C. CCM delivery did not differ significantly between 2- and 3-lead systems (19 892±3472 versus 19 583±4998 CCM signals/day, CI of difference [−1228 to 1847]). The change of peak VO 2 from baseline to 24 weeks was 1.72 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 1.02–2.42) mL/kg per minute greater in the 2-lead device group versus controls. 83.1% of 2-lead subjects compared with 42.7% of controls experienced ≥1 class New York Heart Association improvement ( P <0.001). There were decreased Optimizer-related adverse events with the 2-lead system compared with the 3-lead system (0% versus 8%; P =0.03).

Conclusions:

The 2-lead system effectively delivers comparable amount of CCM signals (including in subjects with atrial fibrillation) as the 3-lead system, is equally safe and improves peak VO 2 and New York Heart Association. Device-related adverse effects are less with the 2-lead system.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03339310

Implantable devices for heart failure monitoring and therapy

Heart failure (HF), the cardiovascular epidemic of the twenty-first century, is associated with significant comorbidities and high mortality. The prevalence of HF is estimated around 6.5 million people and is expected to increase to 8 million by the year 2030. The associated costs to care for these patients continue to increase. Despite the advancement of pharmacologic therapy with significant improvement in morbidity and mortality, the 5-year survival for heart failure still stands at 61%. The challenges faced by HF patients include difficulty with lifestyle modifications, nonadherence to complex medical regimens, financial limitations, lack of access to medical care, and unfavorable side effects. The sickest HF patients, who are ACC/AHA stage D, have advanced therapeutic options such as left ventricular assist devices and orthotopic heart transplant; however, the majority of patients are ACC/AHA stage C and/or not candidates for such advanced care. With constraints placed on hospitals by Medicare on HF readmissions as well as the multiple comorbidities imposed by this disease, intense interest is focused on the development of implantable devices as add-on therapy. This review discusses the innovative devices under varying stages of investigation or approved for monitoring and treatment of HF.

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

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-REG_25-45 ) 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-REG_35-45 ) and 25% ≤ LVEF < 35% (CCM-REG_25-34 ). 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-REG_25-45 and by a similar amount in CCM-REG_35-45 (P < 0.0001) and CCM-REG_25-34 . MLHFQ and NYHA class improved in all three cohorts_, with progressive improvements over time (P < 0.002). Three-year survival in CCM-REG_25-45 (82.8%) and CCM-REG_24-34 (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-REG_35-45 (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%.

Cardiac contractility modulation: mechanisms of action in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and beyond

Heart failure (HF) is responsible for substantial morbidity and mortality and is increasing in prevalence. Although there has been remarkable progress in the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), morbidity and mortality are still substantial. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) signals, consisting of biphasic high-voltage bipolar signals delivered to the right ventricular septum during the absolute refractory period, have been shown to improve symptoms, exercise tolerance and quality of life and reduce the rate of HF hospitalizations in patients with ejection fractions (EF) between 25% and 45%. CCM therapy is currently approved in the European Union, China, India, Australia and Brazil for use in symptomatic HFrEF patients with normal or slightly prolonged QRS duration. CCM is particularly beneficial in patients with baseline EF between 35% and 45%, which includes half the range of HF patients with mid-range EFs (HFmrEF). At the cellular level, CCM has been shown in HFrEF patients to improve calcium handling, to reverse the foetal myocyte gene programme associated with HF, and to facilitate reverse remodelling. This review highlights the preclinical and clinical literature related to CCM in HFrEF and HFmrEF and outlines the potential of CCM for HF with preserved EF, concluding that CCM may fill an important unmet need in the therapeutic approach to HF across the range of EFs.

[Medicinal treatment of tricuspid valve regurgitation]

The vast majority of tricuspid valve regurgitations are of low degree without prognostic relevance in healthy individuals; however, morbidity and mortality increase with the degree of regurgitation, which can be secondary to either primary (structural) or secondary (functional) alterations of the valve. Due to the frequent lack of symptoms, echocardiographic examinations should be annually performed in patients with higher degree (at least moderate) tricuspid valve regurgitation, in particular in the presence of risk factors. Individual therapeutic management strategies should consider the etiology of the tricuspid valve regurgitation, the degree of regurgitation, the valve pathology and the risk-to-benefit ratio of the envisaged therapeutic procedure. Medicinal treatment options for tricuspid valve regurgitation are limited and generalized recommendations cannot be provided due to the lack of conclusive clinical trials. Symptomatic therapeutic measures encompass especially (loop) diuretics for the reduction of preload and afterload of the right ventricle. Pharmaceutical reduction of the heart rate should be avoided in patients with right heart insufficiency. While symptomatic therapeutic measures are often associated with only moderate effects, the most effective therapy of tricuspid valve regurgitation consists in the treatment of underlying illnesses, in most cases pulmonary hypertension due to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), left heart disease or acute pulmonary embolism. Based on a number of published clinical studies and licensing of new drugs, treatment options for patients with PAH and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have substantially improved during the past years allowing for a differentiated, individualized management.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to confirm a subgroup analysis of the prior FIX-HF-5 (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure) study showing that cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improved exercise tolerance (ET) and quality of life in patients with ejection fractions between 25% and 45%.

BACKGROUND

CCM therapy for New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III and IV heart failure (HF) patients consists of nonexcitatory electrical signals delivered to the heart during the absolute refractory period.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients with NYHA functional class III or IV symptoms, QRS duration <130 ms, and ejection fraction ≥25% and ≤45% were randomized to continued medical therapy (control, n = 86) or CCM (treatment, n = 74, unblinded) for 24 weeks. Peak Vo₂ (primary endpoint), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire, NYHA functional class, and 6-min hall walk were measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Bayesian repeated measures linear modeling was used for the primary endpoint analysis with 30% borrowing from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup. Safety was assessed by the percentage of patients free of device-related adverse events with a pre-specified lower bound of 70%.

RESULTS

The difference in peak Vo₂ between groups was 0.84 (95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.123 to 1.552) ml O₂/kg/min, satisfying the primary endpoint. Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire (p < 0.001), NYHA functional class (p < 0.001), and 6-min hall walk (p = 0.02) were all better in the treatment versus control group. There were 7 device-related events, yielding a lower bound of 80% of patients free of events, satisfying the primary safety endpoint. The composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations was reduced from 10.8% to 2.9% (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

CCM is safe, improves exercise tolerance and quality of life in the specified group of HF patients, and leads to fewer HF hospitalizations. (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure; NCT01381172).

[Cardiac contractility modulation]

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a device-based electrical therapy for the additive treatment of chronic drug-refractory heart insufficiency. High-amplitude signals are applied during the absolute refractory period and have been shown to enhance the strength of left ventricular (LV) contraction and improve exercise tolerance and quality of life. The mechanisms of action appear to involve effects on myocardial gene expression and on normalization of key myocardial proteins. So far, more than 3500 CCM devices have been implanted worldwide. For patients with therapy refractory heart insufficiency and narrow QRS complex, CCM is together with baroreceptor activation the only additive electrical therapy which had been approved in Germany. For the first time CCM has been referenced in the current guidelines on cardiac insufficiency. Prognostic data with respect to mortality have been evaluated in case series. Ongoing randomized trials and registries will address these specific endpoints and have to a significant extent already been recently published. A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval is expected within the next few months.

Long-term effects of device-guided slow breathing in stable heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Background

Slow breathing (SLOWB) alleviates symptoms of chronic heart failure (HF) but its long-term effects are unknown. We examined the acute and long-term impact of device-guided breathing on hemodynamics and prognostic parameters in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

Twenty-one patients with HFrEF (23.9 ± 5.8%, SD ± mean) on optimal medical therapy underwent blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), HR variability, 6-min walk test (6MWT), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), and echocardiography measurements before and 3 months after SLOWB home training (30 min daily). After 3 months, all patients were assigned to continue SLOWB (Group 1) or no-SLOWB (Group 2). All tests were repeated after 6 months. Acute SLOWB (18 ± 5 vs 8 ± 2 breaths/min, P < 0.001) had no influence on BP and HR but improved saturation (97 ± 2 vs 98 ± 2%, P = 0.01). Long-term SLOWB reduced office systolic BP (P < 0.001) but not central or ambulatory systolic BP. SLOWB reduced SDNN/RMSSD ratio (P < 0.05) after 3 months. One-way repeated measures of ANOVA revealed a significant increase in 6MWT and peak RER (respiratory exchange ratio) from baseline to 6-month follow-up in group 1 (P < 0.05) but not group 2 (P = 0.85 for 6MWT, P = 0.69 for RER). No significant changes in echocardiography were noted at follow-up. No HF worsening, rehospitalisation or death occurred in group 1 out to 6-month follow-up. Two hospitalizations for HF decompensation and two deaths ensued in group 2 between 3- and 6-month follow-up.

Conclusions

SLOWB training improves cardiorespiratory capacity and appears to slow the progression of HFrEF. Further long-term outcome studies are required to confirm the benefits of paced breathing in HFrEF.

Cardiac contractility modulation improves left ventricular systolic function partially via miR-25 mediated SERCA2A expression in rabbit trans aortic constriction heart failure model

The purpose of this study was to investigate the underlying mechanism of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) in improving trans aortic constriction (TAC)-induced heart failure (HF) left ventricular (LV) systolic function. A total of 25 New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into 5 groups: sham operation group (SHM), TAC-induced HF group (HF), TAC-induced HF followed by CCM stimulation group (HF + CCM), TAC-induced HF followed by injection of anti-miR-25 group (HF + anti-miR-25), TAC-induced HF followed by CCM stimulation and AAV9-miR-25 injection group (HF + CCM + miR-25). CCM current was performed 6 hours a day for 4 weeks. The left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured by ultrasound. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Western blot were used for measuring RNA and protein levels. The sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase (SERCA2A) and LVEF were reduced, while the miR-25 expression was improved in HF group compared to SHM group. Conversely, the SERCA2A and LVEF were improved, and the miR-25 reduced in the HF + CCM and the HF + anti-miR-25 groups compared to the HF group. Moreover, the SERCA2A and LVEF were reduced, while the miR-25 was improved in the HF + CCM + miR-25 group compared to the HF + CCM group. CCM is a potentially effective procedure for improving LV systolic function, which might partially by inhibiting miR-25 expression, further improved SERCA2A expression in TAC HF models.