Neelagaru Suresh B, Sanchez Javier E, Lau Stanley K, Greenberg Steven M, Raval Nirav Y, Worley Seth, Kalman Jill, Merliss Andrew D, Krueger Steven, Wood Mark, Wish Marc, Burkhoff Daniel, Nademanee Koonlawee
Lone Star Arrhythmia and Heart Failure Center, Amarillo, Texas, USA.
Heart Rhythm. 2006 Oct;3(10):1140-7. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2006.06.031. Epub 2006 Jul 8.
Cardiac contractility modulation signals are associated with acutely improved hemodynamics, but chronic clinical impact is not defined.
The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, pilot study was to determine the feasibility of safely and effectively delivering cardiac contractility modulation signals in patients with heart failure.
Forty-nine subjects with ejection fraction <35%, normal QRS duration (105 +/- 15 ms), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure despite medical therapy received a cardiac contractility modulation pulse generator. Patients were randomized to have their devices programmed to deliver cardiac contractility modulation signals (n = 25, treatment group) or to remain off (n = 24, control group) for 6 months. Evaluations included NYHA class, 6-minute walk, cardiopulmonary stress test, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and Holter monitoring.
Although most baseline features were balanced between groups, ejection fraction (31.4% +/- 7.4% vs 24.9% +/- 6.5%, P = .003), end-diastolic dimension (52.1 +/- 21.4 mm vs 62.5 +/- 6.2 mm, P = .01), peak VO(2) (16.0 +/- 2.9 mL O(2)/kg/min vs 14.3 +/- 2.8 mL O(2)/kg/min, P = .02), and anaerobic threshold (12.3 +/- 2.5 mL O(2)/kg/min vs 10.6 +/- 2.4 mL O(2)/kg/min, P = .01) were worse in the treatment group than in the control group. Nevertheless, one death occurred in the control group, and more patients in the treatment group were free of hospitalization for any cause at 6 months (84% vs 62%). No change in ectopy was observed. Compared with baseline, 6-minute walk (13.4 m), peak VO(2) (0.2 mL O(2)/kg/min), and anaerobic threshold (0.8 mL O(2)/kg/min) increased more in the treatment group than in control. None of these differences were statistically significant (small sample size). NYHA and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire changed similarly in the two groups.
Despite a sicker population in the treatment group, no specific safety concerns emerged with chronic cardiac contractility modulation signal administration. Further study is required to definitively define the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation signals.
心脏收缩力调制信号与急性血流动力学改善相关,但慢性临床影响尚不明确。
本随机、双盲、试点研究的目的是确定在心力衰竭患者中安全有效地传递心脏收缩力调制信号的可行性。
49名射血分数<35%、QRS波时限正常(105±15毫秒)且尽管接受药物治疗但纽约心脏协会(NYHA)心功能分级为III或IV级的心力衰竭患者接受了心脏收缩力调制脉冲发生器。患者被随机分为两组,一组将设备编程为传递心脏收缩力调制信号(n = 25,治疗组),另一组保持关闭状态(n = 24,对照组),持续6个月。评估包括NYHA分级、6分钟步行试验、心肺应激试验、明尼苏达心力衰竭生活问卷和动态心电图监测。
尽管两组之间大多数基线特征均衡,但治疗组的射血分数(31.4%±7.4%对24.9%±6.5%,P = 0.003)、舒张末期内径(52.1±21.4毫米对62.5±6.2毫米,P = 0.01)、峰值摄氧量(16.0±2.9毫升氧气/千克/分钟对14.3±2.8毫升氧气/千克/分钟,P = 0.02)和无氧阈值(12.3±2.5毫升氧气/千克/分钟对10.6±2.4毫升氧气/千克/分钟,P = 0.01)比对照组更差。然而,对照组发生1例死亡,治疗组更多患者在6个月时因任何原因未住院(84%对62%)。未观察到异位心律变化。与基线相比,治疗组6分钟步行距离(增加13.4米)、峰值摄氧量(增加0.2毫升氧气/千克/分钟)和无氧阈值(增加0.8毫升氧气/千克/分钟)的增加幅度大于对照组。这些差异均无统计学意义(样本量小)。两组NYHA分级和明尼苏达心力衰竭生活问卷变化相似。
尽管治疗组患者病情较重,但长期给予心脏收缩力调制信号未出现特定安全问题。需要进一步研究以明确心脏收缩力调制信号的安全性和有效性。