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 unders...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical research in cardiology 2022-11, Vol.111 (11), p.1286-1294
Hauptverfasser: Fastner, Christian, Yuecel, Goekhan, Hetjens, Svetlana, Rudic, Boris, Schmiel, Gereon, Toepel, Matthias, Liebe, Volker, Kruska, Mathieu, Borggrefe, Martin, Burkhoff, Daniel, Akin, Ibrahim, Duerschmied, Daniel, Kuschyk, Juergen
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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  
ISSN:1861-0684
1861-0692
DOI:10.1007/s00392-022-02089-w