TY - JOUR
T1 - A randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in advanced heart failure
AU - Kadish, Alan
AU - Nademanee, Koonlawee
AU - Volosin, Kent
AU - Krueger, Steven
AU - Neelagaru, Suresh
AU - Raval, Nirav
AU - Obel, Owen
AU - Weiner, Stanislav
AU - Wish, Marc
AU - Carson, Peter
AU - Ellenbogen, Kenneth
AU - Bourge, Robert
AU - Parides, Michael
AU - Chiacchierini, Richard P.
AU - Goldsmith, Rochelle
AU - Goldstein, Sidney
AU - Mika, Yuval
AU - Burkhoff, Daniel
AU - Abraham, William T.
N1 - Funding Information:
The study was supported but a grant from Impulse Dynamics (New York, NY), manufacturer of the CCM device.
Funding Information:
This study was supported by IMPULSE Dynamics. Y Mika is an employee and shareholder in IMPULSE Dynamics. D Burkhoff, A Kadish, and WT Abraham are consultants to IMPULSE Dynamics.
PY - 2011/2
Y1 - 2011/2
N2 - Background: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) delivers nonexcitatory electrical signals to the heart during the absolute refractory period intended to improve contraction. Methods: We tested CCM in 428 New York Heart Association class III or IV, narrow QRS heart failure patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% randomized to optimal medical therapy (OMT) plus CCM (n = 215) versus OMT alone (n = 213). Efficacy was assessed by ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), primary end point, peak Vo2 (pVo2), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWFQ) at 6 months. The primary safety end point was a test of noninferiority between groups at 12 months for the composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations (12.5% allowable delta). Results: The groups were comparable for age (58 ± 13 vs 59 ± 12 years), EF (26% ± 7% vs 26% ± 7%), pVo2 (14.7 ± 2.9 vs 14.8 ± 3.2 mL kg-1 min-1), and other characteristics. While VAT did not improve at 6 months, CCM significantly improved pVo2 and MLWHFQ (by 0.65 mL kg-1 min-1 [P = .024] and -9.7 points [P < .0001], respectively) over OMT. Forty-eight percent of OMT and 52% of CCM patients experienced a safety end point, which satisfied the noniferiority criterion (P = .03). Post hoc, hypothesis-generating analysis identified a subgroup (characterized by baseline EF ≥25% and New York Heart Association class III symptoms) in which all parameters were improved by CCM. Conclusions: In the overall target population, CCM did not improve VAT (the primary end point) but did improve pVo2 and MLWHFQ. Cardiac contractility modulation did not have an adverse affect on hospitalizations or mortality within the prespecified boundaries. Further study is required to clarify the role of CCM as a treatment for medically refractory heart failure.
AB - Background: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) delivers nonexcitatory electrical signals to the heart during the absolute refractory period intended to improve contraction. Methods: We tested CCM in 428 New York Heart Association class III or IV, narrow QRS heart failure patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% randomized to optimal medical therapy (OMT) plus CCM (n = 215) versus OMT alone (n = 213). Efficacy was assessed by ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT), primary end point, peak Vo2 (pVo2), and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWFQ) at 6 months. The primary safety end point was a test of noninferiority between groups at 12 months for the composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations (12.5% allowable delta). Results: The groups were comparable for age (58 ± 13 vs 59 ± 12 years), EF (26% ± 7% vs 26% ± 7%), pVo2 (14.7 ± 2.9 vs 14.8 ± 3.2 mL kg-1 min-1), and other characteristics. While VAT did not improve at 6 months, CCM significantly improved pVo2 and MLWHFQ (by 0.65 mL kg-1 min-1 [P = .024] and -9.7 points [P < .0001], respectively) over OMT. Forty-eight percent of OMT and 52% of CCM patients experienced a safety end point, which satisfied the noniferiority criterion (P = .03). Post hoc, hypothesis-generating analysis identified a subgroup (characterized by baseline EF ≥25% and New York Heart Association class III symptoms) in which all parameters were improved by CCM. Conclusions: In the overall target population, CCM did not improve VAT (the primary end point) but did improve pVo2 and MLWHFQ. Cardiac contractility modulation did not have an adverse affect on hospitalizations or mortality within the prespecified boundaries. Further study is required to clarify the role of CCM as a treatment for medically refractory heart failure.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79851468796&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.025
DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.025
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79851468796
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 161
SP - 329-337.e2
JO - American Heart Journal
JF - American Heart Journal
IS - 2
ER -