SynthesisCardiovascular therapeutics2019
Outcomes of Cardiac Contractility Modulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular therapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05519046 (Clinical and Functional Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Chagas Heart Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Clinical and Functional Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation in Chagas Heart Disease: a Randomized Study - Contractility - FIX-Chagas
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive individual patient data meta-analysis of the effects of cardiac contractility modulation on functional capacity and heart failure-related quality of life.ESC heart failure · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Cardiac Contractility Modulation as bridge to recovery in a patient with advanced heart failure evaluated for left ventricular assist devices: a case report and review of literature.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Cardiac contractility modulation in patients with heart failure - A review of the literature.Heart failure reviews · 2024Review
- Enhancing myocardial function with cardiac contractility modulation: potential and challenges.ESC heart failure · 2024Review
- The Year 2022 in Cardiovascular Diseases-Clinics and practice · 2023Article
- Cardiac Reverse Remodeling in Ischemic Heart Disease with Novel Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Emerging Concepts on Infection of Novel Cardiac Implantable Devices.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Matching Imaging and Remodulation Effects: Benefits of Cardiac Contractility Modulation Shown by Global Longitudinal Strain: A Case Report.Clinics and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a device therapy for systolic heart failure (HF) in patients with narrow QRS. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of CCM therapy.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between January 2001 and June 2018. Outcomes of interest were peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), 6-Minute Walk Distance (6MWD), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), HF hospitalizations, cardiac arrhythmias, pacemaker/ICD malfunctioning, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR).
resultsFour RCTs including 801 patients (CCM n = 394) were available for analysis. The mean age was 59.63 ± 0.84 years, mean ejection fraction was 29.14 ± 1.22%, and mean QRS duration was 106.23 ± 1.65 msec. Mean follow-up duration was six months. CCM was associated with improved MLWHFQ (SMD -0.69, p = 0.0008). There were no differences in HF hospitalizations (OR 0.76, p = 0.12), 6MWD (SMD 0.67, p = 0.10), arrhythmias (OR 1.40, p = 0.14), pacemaker/ICD malfunction/sensing defect (OR 2.23, p = 0.06), all-cause hospitalizations (OR 0.73, p = 0.33), or all-cause mortality (OR 1.04, p = 0.92) between the CCM and non-CCM groups.
conclusionsShort-term treatment with CCM may improve MLFHQ without significant difference in 6MWD, arrhythmic events, HF hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. There is a trend towards increased pacemaker/ICD device malfunction. Larger RCTs might be needed to determine if the CCM therapy will be beneficial with longer follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.