ArticleESC heart failure2025
Two-year outcomes of a cardiac microcurrent device in chronic heart failure: A first-in-human pilot study.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between functional Status and cardiac function in chronic heart failure: insights from the C-MIC II Trial.ESC heart failure · 2026Trial
- Cardio-microcurrent device treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Results from the C-MIC II open-label randomized controlled trial.European journal of heart failure · 2025Trial
- Cardiac microcurrent therapy in heart failure: Mechanistic rationale, early clinical evidence, and future directions.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Two-year outcomes of a cardiac microcurrent device in chronic heart failure: A first-in-human pilot study.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsIn heart failure patients, altered myocardial electrical fields linked to oedema may impair left ventricular function. While short-term use of implanted microcurrent generators (C-MIC) has shown promise, long-term effects remain unclear. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of C-MIC use beyond the initial 6 month pilot period.
methodsPatients from the initial C-MIC pilot study who were alive at 6 months were screened for 2 year follow-up. The primary endpoint included rates of all-cause, cardiac- and device-related mortality, all-cause, cardiac and device related hospitalizations, along with adverse events, device malfunctions and exchanges. Secondary endpoints evaluated device performance via left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 6 min walk distance, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and SF-36 quality-of-life scores and the need for prolonged therapy.
resultsOf the 10 patients enrolled in the initial study, 7 were enrolled in follow-up (mean age 52.4 ± 7.6 years, NYHA Class III and mean LVEF 31.7 ± 3.7%). No device-related adverse events occurred. One non-cardiac, non-device related death was reported at 18 months. Improvement in LVEF of 11.60% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.64-17.56, P < 0.001] from baseline to 6 months was maintained at 2 years post-C-MIC deactivation, with a sustained increase of 12.56% from baseline (95% CI: 4.67-20.45, P = 0.002). Similarly, the 6 min walk distance improved by 206.35 m at 6 months (95% CI: 161.32-251.39, P < 0.0001) and remained at 191 m above baseline at 2 years (95% CI: 131.83-250.99, P < 0.0001). Improvements in NYHA functional class and SF-36 quality-of-life scores observed at 6 months were also preserved throughout the 2 year follow-up. One patient required C-MIC reactivation.
conclusionsLong-term use of the C-MIC device appears safe with sustained improvements in NYHA class, LVEF, 6 min walk distance and quality of life, supporting the long-term therapeutic potential of microcurrent therapy.
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.