Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 45 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYClinical cardiology

Timing of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy Implementation

  • Goekhan Yuecel1,2
  • Gamze Yildirim1
  • Kristin Schreiner1,2
  • Svetlana Hetjens3
  • Konstantinos Giannakopoulos4
  • Abbass Kodeih1
  • Mostafa Khalil1,2
  • Babak Yazdani5
  • Faeq Husain‐Syed6
  • Daniel Duerschmied1,2
  • William T. Abraham7
  • Ibrahim Akin1,2
1 more authors
  • Jürgen Kuschyk1,2
7 affiliations
  1. 1First Department of Medicine University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim of the University of Heidelberg Mannheim Germany
  2. 2German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, Partner Site Heidelberg‐Mannheim Mannheim Germany
  3. 3Department of Medical Statistics and Biomathematics University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim of the Heidelberg University Mannheim Germany
  4. 4First Department of Cardiology Hippokration General Hospital National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece
  5. 5Fifth Department of Medicine University Medical Centre Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim of the Heidelberg University Mannheim Germany
  6. 6Department of Internal Medicine II, Division of Nephrology University Hospital Giessen and Marburg Justus‐Liebig‐University Giessen Giessen Germany
  7. 7Division of Cardiovascular Medicine The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USA
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Aims: Symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) despite medical treatment can be addressed with cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy, which has yet to have been investigated regarding outcome differences between early versus late implementation.

Methods and Results: CCM recipients from the Mannheim Cardiac Contractility Modulation Observational Registry (MAINTAINED) aged ≤ 70 years at implantation were grouped with regard to implantation time after the first diagnosis of CCM indicating HF (New York Heart Association classification (NYHA) ≥ 2 and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) = 25%–45%) into either Early‐ (EC, n = 50, implantation < 13 months after diagnosis) or Late‐Implantation Group (LC, n = 81, implantation ≥ 13 months after diagnosis). Both groups were compared regarding survival, NYHA, LVEF, and HF‐related hospitalizations for up to 60 months. The mean implantation time after the first diagnosis were 5.85 ± 3.1 versus 92 ± 70.2 months (first values EC, p < 0.05). Mean survival was better for EC (55.2 ± 1.7 vs. 52.8 ± 1.6 months, p < 0.05). Improvements in NYHA (2.98 ± 0.47 to 2.0 ± 0.73 vs. 3.01 ± 0.46 to 2.25 ± 0.8, both p < 0.05) and LVEF (23.2 ± 7.5 to ± 38.82 ± 12.85 vs. 23.9 ± 7 to 29.92 ± 8.9%, each p < 0.05) were comparable, with differences in terms of grouping. Hospitalizations due to HF were more frequent to LC patients (39 vs. 110 events, Odds Ratio 2.1).

Conclusions: Heart failure patients might experience improvements in functional status and left ventricular reverse remodeling following CCM therapy, regardless of the timing of implantation. Early implementation of CCM within the first year of CCM suitable HF might provide additional benefits regarding survival, left ventricular systolic recovery and protection against heart failure hospitalizations.

Related

  1. The cardiac myosin binding protein-C–myosin S2 interaction: modulation of cardiac contractility and its role in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy☆
    Stephanie R. Rzewnicki, James W. McNamara, Morgan M. Seffrood +4
    Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology PlusPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textCardiovascular medicinePMCEurope PMC
  2. Cholesterol-Mediated Modulation of Collecting Lymphatic Vessel Contractility: Exploring Cholesterol Depletion as a Therapeutic Alternative to Improve Lymphatic Function in Hypercholesterolemia
    K. Keane, J. A. Castorena-Gonzalez
    bioRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textPhysiologybioRxiv
  3. Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy in Acute Stroke Nursing: Timing, Safety, Motor Recovery, and Nurse-Facilitated Implementation
    Faiz Mordiffi, Sun-Sheng Feng, Pei-Tsan Lee
    South East Asia Nursing ResearchPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineDOAJ
  4. Vitamin D Pathway Activation Reduces Cardiomyocyte DNA Damage and Improves Cardiac Contractility in Preclinical Models
    Masamichi Ito, Manami Katoh, Masayuki Kubota +23
    JACC: AdvancesPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textCardiovascular medicinePMCDOAJ
  5. Laxative use after cardiac arrest: exposure timing, treatment selection, and outcome interpretation
    Jian Sun, Peihong Li, Hongyi Hu
    Journal of Intensive CarePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineDOAJ

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{yuecel2026timing,
  title = {{Timing of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy Implementation}},
  author = {Goekhan Yuecel and Gamze Yildirim and Kristin Schreiner and Svetlana Hetjens and Konstantinos Giannakopoulos and Abbass Kodeih and Mostafa Khalil and Babak Yazdani and Faeq Husain‐Syed and Daniel Duerschmied and William T. Abraham and Ibrahim Akin and Jürgen Kuschyk},
  journal = {Clinical cardiology},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1002/clc.70507},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13723168},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Timing of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy Implementation
AU  - Goekhan Yuecel
AU  - Gamze Yildirim
AU  - Kristin Schreiner
AU  - Svetlana Hetjens
AU  - Konstantinos Giannakopoulos
AU  - Abbass Kodeih
AU  - Mostafa Khalil
AU  - Babak Yazdani
AU  - Faeq Husain‐Syed
AU  - Daniel Duerschmied
AU  - William T. Abraham
AU  - Ibrahim Akin
AU  - Jürgen Kuschyk
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/31
JO  - Clinical cardiology
DO  - 10.1002/clc.70507
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13723168
AB  - Aims: Symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) despite medical treatment can be addressed with cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy, which has yet to have been investigated regarding outcome differences between early versus late implementation.  Methods and Results: CCM recipients from the Mannheim Cardiac Contractility Modulation Observational Registry (MAINTAINED) aged ≤ 70 years at implantation were grouped with regard to implantation time after the first diagnosis of CCM indicating HF (New York Heart Association classification (NYHA) ≥ 2 and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) = 25%–45%) into either Early‐ (EC, n = 50, implantation < 13 months after diagnosis) or Late‐Implantation Group (LC, n = 81, implantation ≥ 13 months after diagnosis). Both groups were compared regarding survival, NYHA, LVEF, and HF‐related hospitalizations for up to 60 months. The mean implantation time after the first diagnosis were 5.85 ± 3.1 versus 92 ± 70.2 months (first values EC, p < 0.05). Mean survival was better for EC (55.2 ± 1.7 vs. 52.8 ± 1.6 months, p < 0.05). Improvements in NYHA (2.98 ± 0.47 to 2.0 ± 0.73 vs. 3.01 ± 0.46 to 2.25 ± 0.8, both p < 0.05) and LVEF (23.2 ± 7.5 to ± 38.82 ± 12.85 vs. 23.9 ± 7 to 29.92 ± 8.9%, each p < 0.05) were comparable, with differences in terms of grouping. Hospitalizations due to HF were more frequent to LC patients (39 vs. 110 events, Odds Ratio 2.1).  Conclusions: Heart failure patients might experience improvements in functional status and left ventricular reverse remodeling following CCM therapy, regardless of the timing of implantation. Early implementation of CCM within the first year of CCM suitable HF might provide additional benefits regarding survival, left ventricular systolic recovery and protection against heart failure hospitalizations.
SN  - 0160-9289
SN  - 1932-8737
ER  -