Cardiac contractility modulation treatment in patients with symptomatic heart failure despite optimal medical therapy and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)

Six-minute walk test as clinical end point in cardiomyopathy clinical trials, including ATTR-CM: a systematic literature review

Aim: The six-minute walk test (6MWT) is a common measure of functional capacity in patients with heart failure (HF). Primary clinical study end points in cardiomyopathy (CM) trials, including transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with CM (ATTR-CM), are often limited to hospitalization and mortality. Objective: To investigate the relationship between the 6MWT and hospitalization or mortality in CM, including ATTR-CM. Method: A PRISMA-guided systematic literature review was conducted using search terms for CM, 6MWT, hospitalization and mortality. Results: Forty-one studies were identified that reported 6MWT data and hospitalization or mortality data for patients with CM. The data suggest that a greater 6MWT distance is associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization or mortality in CM. Conclusion: The 6MWT is an accepted alternative end point in CM trials, including ATTR-CM.

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.

Novel Medical Treatments and Devices for the Management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a growing issue in developed countries; it is often the result of underlying processes such as ischemia, hypertension, infiltrative diseases or even genetic abnormalities. The great majority of the affected patients present a reduced ejection fraction (≤40%), thereby falling under the name of "heart failure with reduced ejection fraction" (HFrEF). This condition represents a major threat for patients: it significantly affects life quality and carries an enormous burden on the whole healthcare system due to its high management costs. In the last decade, new medical treatments and devices have been developed in order to reduce HF hospitalizations and improve prognosis while reducing the overall mortality rate. Pharmacological therapy has significantly changed our perspective of this disease thanks to its ability of restoring ventricular function and reducing symptom severity, even in some dramatic contexts with an extensively diseased myocardium. Notably, medical therapy can sometimes be ineffective, and a tailored integration with device technologies is of pivotal importance. Not by chance, in recent years, cardiac implantable devices witnessed a significant improvement, thereby providing an irreplaceable resource for the management of HF. Some devices have the ability of assessing (CardioMEMS) or treating (ultrafiltration) fluid retention, while others recognize and treat life-threatening arrhythmias, even for a limited time frame (wearable cardioverter defibrillator). The present review article gives a comprehensive overview of the most recent and important findings that need to be considered in patients affected by HFrEF. Both novel medical treatments and devices are presented and discussed.

Enhancing myocardial function with cardiac contractility modulation: potential and challenges

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) offers a novel therapeutic avenue for heart failure patients, particularly those unresponsive to cardiac resynchronization therapy within specific QRS duration ranges. This review elucidates CCM's mechanistic underpinnings, its impact on myocardial function, and utility across patient demographics. However, CCM is limited by insufficient data on mortality and hospitalization rate reductions, as well as the need for specialized device implantation skills. While prevailing research has concentrated on left ventricular effects, a knowledge gap persists for other patient subsets. Future inquiries should address combinatory treatment strategies, extended usage and the impact of atrial fibrillation on device implantation. Such expanded studies could refine therapeutic outcomes and widen the scope of beneficiaries.

Cardiac Contractility Modulation: Implications in Heart Failure, a Current Review

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a novel therapeutic approach for heart failure patients, which utilizes nonexcitatory electrical myocardial stimulation in the absolute refractory period of the cardiac cycle. This stimulation has been shown to increase contractility, leading to improved heart failure symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. CCM is FDA approved for heart failure patients with an LVEF between 25% and 45% who remained symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy and not candidate of cardiac resynchronization therapy. CCM offers expanded treatment options for heart failure patients who have continued symptoms while on optimal medical therapy.

Beyond Conventional Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: A Review of Electrophysiological Options in the Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The incidence of heart failure (HF) continues to grow and burden our health care system. Electrophysiological aberrations are common amongst patients with heart failure and can contribute to worsening symptoms and prognosis. Targeting these abnormalities with cardiac and extra-cardiac device therapies and catheter ablation procedures augments cardiac function. Newer technologies aimed to improvement procedural outcomes, address known procedural limitations and target newer anatomical sites have been trialled recently. We review the role and evidence base for conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) and its optimisation, catheter ablation therapies for atrial arrhythmias, cardiac contractility and autonomic modulation therapies.

Bridging the gap in the symptomatic heart failure patient journey: insights from the Italian scenario

BACKGROUND

The prognosis for heart failure (HF) patients remains poor, with a high mortality rate, and a marked reduction in quality of life (QOL) and functional status. This study aims to explore the ongoing needs of HF management and the epidemiology of patients followed by Italian HF clinics, with a specific focus on cardiac contractility modulation (CCM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from patients admitted to 14 HF outpatients clinics over 4 weeks were collected and compared to the results of a survey open to physicians involved in HF management operating in Italian centers.

RESULTS

One hundred and five physicians took part in the survey. Despite 94% of patients receive a regular follow-up every 3-6 months, available therapies are considered insufficient in 30% of cases. Physicians reported a lack of treatment options for 23% of symptomatic patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) and for 66% of those without reduced EF. Approximately 3% of HF population (two patients per month per HF clinic) meets the criteria for immediate CCM treatment, which is considered a useful option by 15% of survey respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite this relatively small percentage, considering total HF population, CCM could potentially benefit numerous HF patients, particularly the elderly, by reducing hospitalizations, improving functional capacity and QOL.

Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy in Patients with Amyloid Cardiomyopathy and Heart Failure, Case Report, Review of the Biophysics of CCM Function, and AMY-CCM Registry Presentation

Cardiac amyloidosis may result in an aggressive form of heart failure (HF). Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) has been shown to be a concrete therapeutic option in patients with symptomatic HF, but there is no evidence of its application in patients with cardiac amyloidosis. We present the case of TTR amyloidosis, where CCM therapy proved to be effective. The patient had a history of multiple HF hospitalizations due to an established diagnosis of wild type TTR-Amyloidosis with significant cardiac involvement. Since he was highly symptomatic, except during continuous dobutamine and diuretic infusion, it was opted to pursue CCM therapy device implantation. At follow up, a significant improvement in clinical status was reported with an increase of EF, functional status (6 min walk test improved from zero meters at baseline, to 270 m at 1 month and to 460 m at 12 months), and a reduction in pulmonary pressures. One year after device implantation, no other HF hospital admission was needed. CCM therapy may be effective in this difficult clinical setting. The AMY-CCM Registry, which has just begun, will evaluate the efficacy of CCM in patients with HF and diagnosed TTR amyloidosis to bring new evidence on its potential impact as a therapeutic option.

One-Year Outcome of Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction, Atrial Fibrillation, and Previous Resynchronization: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

After 6 months of therapy, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) has been shown to improve symptoms, exercise tolerance, and quality of life as well as reduce the rate of hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), but long-term effects data are lacking, with no randomized trial to date.

STUDY QUESTION

What is the long-term benefit of the CCM device implantation in symptomatic patients with severe, optimally treated HFrEF?

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective trial involving patients with symptomatic HFrEF [New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III or IV, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%] who were supported by a CCM device.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (19 men), aged 66.5 ± 6.9 years, were provided with CCM therapy and followed up for an average duration of 321.7 ± 113.5 days. The etiology of heart failure was ischemic in 16 patients (80%), 9 patients (45%) had atrial fibrillation, 6 patients (30%) had diabetes mellitus, and mean creatinine clearance value was 54.8 ± 13.0 mL/min. Eleven patients (60%) had LVEF ≤25%. Although all the patients had an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator, 6 of them (30%) also had resynchronization therapy. The pharmacological treatment has been optimized in all patients. One year after implantation, the LVEF increased from 24.68% ± 4.5 to 34.6 ± 5 ( P < 0.0001), NYHA class improved from 3.2 ± 0.5 to 1.4 ± 0.5 ( P < 0.0001), and exercise tolerance evaluated with a 6-Minute Walk Test increased (from 307.9 ± 74.1 m to 567 ± 99.5 m; P < 0.00001). These improvements were largely seen in the first 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the course of a year, CCM therapy was associated with improved LVEF and NYHA class, as well as significantly better exercise tolerance, even in patients with atrial fibrillation and cardiac resynchronization therapy and did not seem to be associated with additional significant device-related problems.

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.

The effectiveness of cardiac contractility modulation in patients with chronic heart failure and atrial fibrillation: results of the 12-month follow-up

Aim. To evaluate the efficacy, safety and effect on the prognosis of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation compared with the group of only optimal drug therapy (ODT) of the 12-month follow-up. Materials and methods. Patients (n=200) were sequentially included in two groups: group 1 patients with CHF who are on ODT in combination with implanted CCM devices (n=100), group 2 comparison patients with CHF who receive only ODT (n=100). Initially and after 12 months, 12-channel electrocardiography (ECG), transthoracic echocardiography, daily ECG-monitoring, determination of the level of NT-proBNP, a six-minute walk test and an assessment of the quality of life according to the Minnesota Questionnaire were performed. Results. In the CCM therapy group, a significant clinical improvement was revealed, which was expressed in the form of a decrease in functional class CHF by NYHA (New York Heart Association), an increase in the distance of a six-minute walk test and an improvement in the quality of life according to Minnesota Questionnaire, as well as an improvement in left ventricle contractile function compared to the ODT group. The absence of a proarrhythmogenic effect of the CCM was shown. There was a significant decrease in the frequency of the readmission due to CHF and the probability of achieving the combined endpoint in the CCM therapy group compared with only ODT. Conclusion. The use of CCM in patients with CHF and atrial fibrillation is an effective and safe method of therapy that leads to the development of reverse remodeling of the myocardium, improves the clinical status of patients and reduces the frequency of readmission due to decompensation of CHF.

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

BACKGROUND

Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an FDA-approved device therapy for patients with refractory systolic heart failure and normal QRS width. Randomized trials demonstrated benefits of CCM primarily for patients with severe heart failure (> NYHA class II).

PURPOSE

To better understand individualized indication in clinical practice, we compared the effect of CCM in patients with baseline NYHA class II vs. NYHA class III or ambulatory IV over the 5-year period in our large clinical registry (MAINTAINED Observational Study).

METHODS

Changes in NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), NT-proBNP level, and KDIGO chronic kidney disease stage were compared as functional parameters. In addition, mortality within 3 years was compared with the prediction of the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic heart failure risk score.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included in the analyses (10% with NYHA class II). Only patients with NYHA class III/IV showed a significant improvement in NYHA class over 5 years of CCM (II: 0.1 ± 0.6; p = 0.96 vs. III/IV: - 0.6 ± 0.6; p < 0.0001). In both groups, LVEF improved significantly (II: 4.7 ± 8.3; p = 0.0072 vs. III/IV: 7.0 ± 10.7%; p < 0.0001), while TAPSE improved significantly only in NYHA class III/IV patients (II: 2.2 ± 1.6; p = 0.20 vs. III/IV: 1.8 ± 5.2 mm; p = 0.0397). LVEF improvement was comparable in both groups over 5 years of CCM (p = 0.83). NYHA class II patients had significantly lower NT-proBNP levels at baseline (858 [175/6887] vs. 2632 [17/28830] ng/L; p = 0.0044), which was offset under therapy (399 [323/1497] vs. 901 [13/18155] ng/L; p = 0.61). Actual 3-year mortality was 17 and 26% vs. a predicted mortality of 31 and 42%, respectively (p = 0.0038 for NYHA class III/IV patients).

CONCLUSIONS

NYHA class III/IV patients experienced more direct and extensive functional improvements with CCM and a survival benefit compared with the predicted risk. However, our data suggest that NYHA class II patients may also benefit from the sustained positive effects of LVEF improvement.

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

During the last years, the management of heart failure (HF) made substantial progress, focusing on device-based therapies to meet the demands of this complex syndrome. In this case report, we present a multistep approach to deal with HF. Specifically, we report the first patient subjected to the implantation of both Optimizer Smart^® (Impulse Dynamics Inc., Marlton, NJ, USA) and CardioMEMS devices. A 72-year-old male patient with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was admitted to our cardiology department in January 2021, following a progressive shortening of the time between hospitalizations for levosimendan infusions. Specifically, the patient was monitored daily by CardioMEMS, and a strategy of levosimendan infusions guided by the device had been adopted. He was also a carrier of MitraClips and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) and had optimized HF medical therapy. In January 2021, the patient implanted Optimizer Smart^® device for cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy because of poor response to therapy and elevated pulmonary artery pressure (PAP). CCM significantly reduced PAP values following discharge (systolic PAP 33.67 ± 2.92 vs. 40.6 ± 3.37 mmHg, diastolic PAP 14.5 ± 2.01 vs. 22.5 ± 2.53 mmHg, mean PAP 22.87 ± 2.20 vs. 30.9 ± 2.99 mmHg, HR 60.93 ± 1.53 vs. 80.83 ± 3.66 bpm; p < 0.0001), with persisting effect at 9 months. The usefulness of CCM is objectively demonstrated for the first time by continuous invasive monitoring of PAP by CardioMEMS, which can suggest the correct timing for CCM implantation.

The emerging role of cardiac contractility modulation in heart failure treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure often progresses despite optimal medical and device therapies, and advanced mechanical circulatory support has limited availability and substantial associated morbidity. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) provides nonexcitatory stimulation to ventricular myocardium which increases cardiac contractility without increasing oxygen demand. This review describes the emerging role of CCM in heart failure treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FIX-HF-5C2 study demonstrated similar safety and efficacy profile of the two-lead Optimizer device in comparison with the prior three-lead system, thereby decreasing procedural complexity and minimizing endocardial hardware. The FIX-HF-5C trial underscored the benefit of CCM in patients with mild-moderate left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction, 25-45%) with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III symptoms. The summarized randomized trial data show consistent improvements in peak VO2, 6-min walk distance, and NYHA functional class with CCM. Future trials are planned to determine the role of CCM in heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction, obligate ventricular pacing, and atrial arrhythmias.

SUMMARY

Nonexcitatory extracellular electric potentials can facilitate inotropic improvements in the failing heart. The mechanism of CCM does not increase myocardial oxygen consumption and has been shown to mitigate heart failure symptoms, decrease hospitalizations, and work in synergy with guideline-directed therapy for heart failure.

New Perspectives in the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Acute and chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a major public health problem, studies showing a 25% survival rate at 5 years after hospitalization. If left untreated, it is a common and potentially fatal disease. In recent years, the medical and device therapies of patients with HFrEF have significantly improved. The aim of our review is to provide an evidence-based update on new therapeutic strategies in acute and chronic settings, to prevent hospitalization and death in patients with HFrEF. We performed a systematic literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, and we included a number of 23 randomized controlled trials published in the last 30 years. The benefit of beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with HFrEF is well known. Recent developments, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, vericiguat, transcatheter mitral valve repair, wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitor and cardiac contractility modulation, have also proven effective in improving prognosis. In addition, other new therapeutic agents showed encouraging results, but they are currently being studied. The implementation of personalized disease management programs that directly target the cause of HFrEF is crucial in order to improve prognosis and quality of life for these patients.

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.

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.

Innovations in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for the management of a variety of cardiac conditions, including tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and medically refractory heart failure (HF). Recent advancements in CIED technology have led to innovative solutions that overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices or address unmet needs. Leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and extravascular ICDs eliminate lead-related complications common with conventional pacemakers or ICDs. Conduction system pacing (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing) is a more physiologic method of pacing and avoids the deleterious consequences associated with long-term right ventricular pacing. For HF-related devices, cardiac contractility modulation is an emerging therapy that bridges a gap for many patients ineligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy and has been shown to improve HF symptoms and decrease hospitalizations and mortality in select patients. Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors help guide HF management and reduce hospitalizations. Lastly, new phrenic nerve stimulating devices are being utilized to treat central sleep apnea, a common comorbidity associated with HF. While further long-term studies are still underway for many of these new technologies, it is anticipated that these devices will become indispensable therapeutics in the expanding cardiovascular armamentarium.

Proportion of Patients Eligible for Cardiac Contractility Modulation: Real-Life Data from a Single-Center Heart Failure Clinic

INTRODUCTION

Based on recently published randomized controlled trials, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) seems to be an effective device-based therapeutic option in symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) (CHF). The aim of the current study was to estimate what proportion of patients with CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% could be eligible for CCM based on the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C trial.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred and followed up at our HF clinic due to HF with reduced or mid-range LVEF were retrospectively assessed. After a treatment optimization period of 3-6 months, the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C trial (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV, 25% ≤ LVEF ≤45%, QRS <130 ms, and sinus rhythm) were applied to determine the number of patients eligible for CCM.

RESULTS

Of the 640 patients who were involved, the proportion of highly symptomatic patients in NYHA class III/IV decreased from 77.0% (n = 493) at baseline to 18.6% (n = 119) after the treatment optimization period (p < 0.001). Mean LVEF increased significantly from 29.0 ± 7.9% to 36.3 ± 9.9% (p < 0.001), while the proportion of patients with 25% ≤ LVEF ≤45% increased from 69.7% (n = 446) to 73.3% (n = 469) (p < 0.001). QRS duration was below 130 ms in 63.1% of patients, while 30.0% of patients had persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation. We found that the eligibility criteria for CCM therapy based on the FIX-HF-5C study were fulfilled for 23.0% (n = 147) of patients at baseline and 5.2% (n = 33) after treatment optimization.

CONCLUSION

This single-center cohort study showed that 5% of patients with CHF and impaired LVEF immediately after treatment optimization fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the FIX-HF-5C study and would be candidates for CCM.

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 patient with refractory heart failure: an updated evidence-based review

Heart failure is the cardiovascular epidemic of the twenty-first century, with poor prognosis and quality of life despite optimized medical treatment. Despite over the last decade significant improvements, with a major impact on morbidity and mortality, have been made in therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, little progress was made in the development of devices, with the implantable defibrillator indicated for patients with left ventricle ejection fraction ≤ 35% and cardiac resynchronization therapy for those with QRS ≥ 130 ms and evidence of left bundle branch block. Nevertheless, only a third of patients meet these criteria and a high percentage of patients are non-responders in terms of improving symptoms. Nowadays, in patients with symptomatic heart failure with ejection fraction between 25% and 45% and QRS < 130 ms, not eligible for cardiac resynchronization, the cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) represents a concrete therapeutic option, having proved to be safe and effective in reducing hospitalizations for heart failure and improving symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life. The aim of this review is therefore to summarize the pathophysiological mechanisms, the current indications, and the recent developments regarding the new applications of the CCM for patients with chronic heart failure.

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

There has been a progressive evolution in the management of patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in those that fulfil pre-defined criteria. However, there exists a significant proportion with refractory symptoms in whom CRT devices are not clinically indicated or ineffective. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a novel therapy that incorporates administration of non-excitatory electrical impulses to the interventricular septum during the absolute refractory period. Implantation is analogous to a traditional transvenous pacemaker system, but with the use of two right ventricular leads. Mechanistic studies have shown augmentation of left ventricular contractility and beneficial global effects on reverse remodeling, primarily through alterations in calcium handling. This appears to occur without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption. Data from clinical trials have shown translational improvements in functional capacity and quality of life, though long-term outcome data are lacking. This review explores the rationale, evidence base and limitations of this nascent technology.

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.

Optimizer Smart in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic heart failure

Cardiac contractility modulation, also referred to as CCM™, by the Optimizer Smart device is an innovative intracardiac device-based therapy that has been recently US FDA-approved for the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 25 and 45%, QRS <130 ms who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. Clinical trials demonstrate that CCM therapy is safe and effective in reducing heart failure hospitalization and improving heart failure symptoms, quality of life and functional performance. This novel device-based therapeutic offers benefits to patients who do not otherwise qualify for cardiac resynchronization therapy. CCM expands the indication beyond the traditional LVEF cutoff of 35% to a newer group including patients who fall in midrange LVEF group, up to 45%.

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

AIMS

The objective of this paper is to assess whether cardiac contractility modulation (via the Optimizer System) plus standard of care (SoC) is a cost-effective treatment for people with heart failure [New York Heart Association (NYHA) III, left ventricular ejection fraction of 25-45%, and narrow QRS] compared against SoC alone from the perspective of the English National Health Service.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a regression equation-based cost-effectiveness model, using individual patient data from three randomized control trials (FIX-HF-5 Phases 1 and 2, and FIX-HF-5C) to populate the majority of parameters. A series of regression equations predicted NYHA class over time, mortality, all-cause hospitalization rates, and health-related quality of life. We conducted the analysis in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case, modelling costs from an English National Health Service perspective, and considering outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a patient lifetime perspective. Our base case analysis produced an incremental cost per additional QALY of GBP22 988 (€25 750) when comparing Optimizer + SoC to SoC alone. This result was not sensitive to parameter uncertainty but was sensitive to the time horizon over which costs and QALYs were captured and the duration over which a survival benefit with Optimizer + SoC can be assumed to apply.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac contractility modulation is likely to be cost-effective in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, NYHA III, and narrow QRS, provided that the treatment benefit can be maintained beyond the duration of the existing clinical trial follow-up. This analysis supports the current recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology that this therapy may be considered for such patients.

New Generation Cardiac Contractility Modulation Device-Filling the Gap in Heart Failure Treatment

(1) Background: Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Despite substantial progress in its prevention and treatment, mortality rates remain high. Device therapy for HF mainly includes cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and the use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Recently, however, a new device therapy—cardiac contractility modulation (CCM)—became available. (2) Aim: The purpose of this study is to present a first case-series of patients with different clinical patterns of HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), supported with the newest generation of CCM devices. (3) Methods and results: Five patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and a New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥ III were supported with CCM OPTIMIZER^® SMART IPGCCMX10 at our clinic. The patients had a median age of 67 ± 8.03 years (47–80) and were all males—four with ischemic etiology dilated cardiomyopathy. In two cases, CCM was added on top of CRT (non-responders), and, in one patient, CCM was delivered during persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). After 6 months of follow-up, the LVEF increased from 25.4 ± 6.8% to 27 ± 9%, and the six-minute walk distance increased from 310 ± 65.1 m to 466 ± 23.6 m. One patient died 47 days after device implantation. (4) Conclusion: CCM therapy provided with the new model OPTIMIZER^® SMART IPG CCMX10 is safe, feasible, and applicable to a wide range of patients with HF.