Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None Introduction. Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a treatment option for patients suffering symptomatic chronic heart failure (CHF) with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF) despite optimal medical therapy, who are not eligible for or non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Despite randomized trials showing benefit in the short term, data on mid-term follow-up (over 12 months) are limited to small observational studies. Purpose. The aim of this observation, prospective study is to assess the impact of CCM therapy on quality of life, symptoms, exercise tolerance and left ventricular function in a population of patients with CHF and moderate-to-severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Methods. Consecutive patients suffering from CHF with LVEF <45%, symptomatic, in NYHA class > II despite optimal medical therapy, underwent CCM implantation at our Centre from October 2017 to October 2018. Enrolled patients underwent baseline evaluation and at 3, 6 and 12 months with transthoracic echocardiogram, ECG, clinical assessment, 6-min hall walking test and Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ). Results. Overall, 10 patients underwent CCM implantation (100% males, mean age 70 ± 8 years, 80% ischaemic cardiomyopathy, mean LVEF 29.4 ± 8%). All patients had at least one hospitalization for worsening heart failure during the previous 12 months. After a mean follow-up of 15 months, 9 patients were alive, while one patient died for worsening heart failure precipitated by pneumonia 2 months following CCM implantation. Among the remaining 9 patients, LVEF improved non-significantly to 32.2 ± 10% (p = 0.092), 6-min walking test distance improved from 170 ± 132 m to 305 ± 99 m (p < 0.001), mean NYHA class improved from 3.0 ± 0.4 to 1.6 ± 0.5 (p = 0.003) and MLWHFQ score improved from 59.0 ± 33 to 34.0 ± 38 (p = 0.037) (Figure 1). Only 2 patients have been hospitalized during the 12 months, for worsening heart failure and sustained ventricular tachycardia, respectively. Overall, a net clinical benefit was detected in 6 out of 9 patients. Among the responders, 2 patients were device-naïve, presenting LVEF > 35%; one patient was a CRT non-responder, while the remaining 3 had narrow QRS. All the non-responders patients had ischaemic cardiomyopathy, one of them with a moderately reduced LVEF and one with a CRT. Conclusion. CCM is effective in improving quality of life, symptoms and exercise tolerance, and reduces hospitalizations in patients with symptomatic CHF on top of optimal medical and electrical therapy. The benefit in responders is maintained over one year after implantation, so this treatment should be considered for highly symptomatic patients suffering from CHF and reduced LVEF. Abstract Figure 1

Does Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy Reduce Atrial Fibrillation Burden?

Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Who is the best candidate?

Case report of optimizer implantation to modulate cardiac contractility in patients with chronic heart failure and atrial fibrillation

P1493Cardiac contractility modulation in left ventricular systolic dysfunction: 1-year single Centre experience and clinical outcome

Device‐therapy in chronic heart failure: Cardiac contractility modulation versus cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac Contractility Modulation for Heart Failure: Current and Future Directions

Cardiac contractility modulation in patients with heart failure — A review of the literature

Impact of Catheter Ablation on Atrial Fibrillation Burden and Symptoms in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Impact of cardiac contractility modulation on left ventricular global and regional function and remodeling.

Cardiac contractility modulation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with QRS duration 120-149 ms: Reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and improvement in functional outcome

A pilot study to assess benefit of atrial rhythm control after cardiac resynchronization therapy and atrioventricular node ablation

Long-Term Renal Function with Cardiac Contractility Modulation Therapy

Incidence of systolic heart failure and need for implantable cardiac defibrillators in patients with atrial fibrillation who had catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic medical therapy

Improvement of Atrial Function and Atrial Reverse Remodeling after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure

Abstract 14262: Atrial Fibrillation Burden and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Cardiac Implanted Electronic Devices

From Clinical Management to Catheter Ablation Indication

The new choice of medical or cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responders---cardiac contractility modula-tion therapy

[Improvement of the technique of positioning the endocardial electrodes of the cardiac contractility modulation device in patients with CHF with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation]

Cardiac contractility modulation attenuates structural and electrical remodeling in a chronic heart failure rabbit model

Acute hemodynamic effects of cardiac contractility modulation with cardiac resynchronization therapy system

Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Poor Left Ventricular Systolic Function