Cardiac contractility modulation in HFrEF patients with QRS duration 120-149 ms: reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and improvement in functional outcome.

CCM-REG device therapy heart failure quality of life reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Journal

Heart rhythm
ISSN: 1556-3871
Titre abrégé: Heart Rhythm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101200317

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 16 03 2024
revised: 11 09 2024
accepted: 15 09 2024
medline: 22 9 2024
pubmed: 22 9 2024
entrez: 21 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

A subset of heart failure (HF) patients qualifies for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, a 30% CRT non-responder rate persists, with patients with narrower QRS durations (i.e., QRSd 120-149 ms) receiving less or inconsistent benefit. CCM may be an important alternative therapy option but has largely been evaluated only in HF patients with QRSd <120 ms. Primarily to evaluate the impact of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) on HF-related hospitalizations and secondarily on left ventricular EF (LVEF) as well as quality of life in HF patients with QRSd 120-149 ms, compared to QRSd <120 ms. CCM-REG enrolled 503 HF patients with a follow-up of up to 2 yrs. Hospitalization rates were available for 1 yr pre-implant. Safety was assessed by comparison of actual versus MAGGIC score- or SHFM-predicted mortality. Among 111/455 subjects with QRSd 120-149 ms (mean QRSd 130±8 ms, age 68±10 yrs, 20% female, LVEF 29±9%, 82% NYHA class III), CCM diminished HF-related hospitalization rate by 72% (pre- vs. post-implant 0.90 vs. 0.25 events/per patient-yr over 2 yrs; p<0.001). LVEF improved by 7±8% (p=0.01 vs. baseline), MLWHFQ score by 10±23 pts (p=0.01 vs. baseline), and NYHA class by 0.5±0.7 classes (<0.001 vs. baseline). The effect size was similar to that in the QRSd <120 ms patients. Mortality within first year was 19% in QRSd 120-149 ms patients, i.e., not significantly different from the MAGGIC score or SHFM prediction. CCM significantly improved HF control in NYHA III HFrEF patients with moderately prolonged QRSd 120-149 ms. The effect was similar to patients with QRSd <120ms.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
A subset of heart failure (HF) patients qualifies for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, a 30% CRT non-responder rate persists, with patients with narrower QRS durations (i.e., QRSd 120-149 ms) receiving less or inconsistent benefit. CCM may be an important alternative therapy option but has largely been evaluated only in HF patients with QRSd <120 ms.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
Primarily to evaluate the impact of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) on HF-related hospitalizations and secondarily on left ventricular EF (LVEF) as well as quality of life in HF patients with QRSd 120-149 ms, compared to QRSd <120 ms.
METHODS METHODS
CCM-REG enrolled 503 HF patients with a follow-up of up to 2 yrs. Hospitalization rates were available for 1 yr pre-implant. Safety was assessed by comparison of actual versus MAGGIC score- or SHFM-predicted mortality.
RESULTS RESULTS
Among 111/455 subjects with QRSd 120-149 ms (mean QRSd 130±8 ms, age 68±10 yrs, 20% female, LVEF 29±9%, 82% NYHA class III), CCM diminished HF-related hospitalization rate by 72% (pre- vs. post-implant 0.90 vs. 0.25 events/per patient-yr over 2 yrs; p<0.001). LVEF improved by 7±8% (p=0.01 vs. baseline), MLWHFQ score by 10±23 pts (p=0.01 vs. baseline), and NYHA class by 0.5±0.7 classes (<0.001 vs. baseline). The effect size was similar to that in the QRSd <120 ms patients. Mortality within first year was 19% in QRSd 120-149 ms patients, i.e., not significantly different from the MAGGIC score or SHFM prediction.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
CCM significantly improved HF control in NYHA III HFrEF patients with moderately prolonged QRSd 120-149 ms. The effect was similar to patients with QRSd <120ms.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39306264
pii: S1547-5271(24)03366-6
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.038
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Christian Fastner (C)

Department of Cardiology, Angiology, Haemostaseology and Medical Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, European Center for AngioScience (ECAS), and German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Niraj Varma (N)

Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Ishu Rao (I)

Impulse Dynamics, Inc., Marlton, NJ, USA.

Peter Falk (P)

Department of Cardiology, Herz- und Gefäßzentrum Bad Bevensen, Bad Bevensen, Germany.

Bjoern Andrew Remppis (BA)

Department of Cardiology, Herz- und Gefäßzentrum Bad Bevensen, Bad Bevensen, Germany.

Kevin Najarian (K)

Consultant for Impulse Dynamics Inc., Marlton, NJ, USA.

Daniel Burkhoff (D)

Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York City, NY, USA.

Ibrahim Akin (I)

Department of Cardiology, Angiology, Haemostaseology and Medical Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, European Center for AngioScience (ECAS), and German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Juergen Kuschyk (J)

Department of Cardiology, Angiology, Haemostaseology and Medical Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, European Center for AngioScience (ECAS), and German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) Partner Site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. Electronic address: juergen.kuschyk@umm.de.

Classifications MeSH