Next Article in Journal
Higher Body Mass Index Is Related to Severe Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Preliminary Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Power-Assisted Liposuction of the Superomedial Pedicle in Primary Wise-Pattern Reduction Mammoplasties
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/jcm14134484
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation on Right Ventricular and Left Atrial Strain in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

by
Cornelia Raab
,
Peter Roehl
,
Matthias Wiora
and
Henning Ebelt
*
Department of Medicine II, Catholic Hospital “St. Johann Nepomuk”, Haarbergstr. 72, 99097 Erfurt, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(13), 4484; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134484
Submission received: 23 May 2025 / Revised: 19 June 2025 / Accepted: 21 June 2025 / Published: 24 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an established therapy for patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are still symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical therapy. It has been described previously that CCM leads to both an improvement of heart failure symptoms as well as of the parameters of left ventricular (LV) function, including LVEF and global longitudinal strain (GLS). However, so far there are no reports describing the effects of CCM on right ventricular (RV) or left atrial (LA) function, respectively. This might be of particular interest as RV global strain (RV GS) and LA strain are important prognostic parameters in heart failure. Methods: Adult patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular function (LVEF <45%) and a QRS complex <130 ms despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with an indication for CCM were eligible for inclusion into this study. Patients receive a follow-up examination every 3 months, including a standardized echocardiographic examination with a special focus on strain analysis. While the effects of CCM on LV global longitudinal strain have been described before, this analysis reports the findings on the RV and LA strain. Results: Between 30.12.2021 and 10.09.2024, 22 patients were prospectively included in the study. CCM implantation was performed in 19 patients. Under active CCM therapy, there was an improvement in right ventricular global strain (CCM: −13.7 ± 4.5 vs. no CCM: −10.1 ± 5.0; p < 0.05), free wall strain (CCM: −14.6 ± 7.3 vs. no CCM: −10.3 ± 10.2; p < 0.05), left atrium strain rate (CCM: 19.7 ± 1.0 vs. no CCM: 15.3 ± 10.2; p < 0.05), and left atrium strain contraction (CCM: −11.5 ± 7.0 vs. no CCM: −7.1 ± 8.5; p < 0.05), whereas there was no difference in left atrium strain conduit (CCM: −9.0 ± 5.0 vs. no CCM: −8.1 ± 5.4; n.s.). To determine which of these parameters are linked to an improvement of quality of life, as seen in the Kansas City Heart Failure Questionnaire (KCCQ), a regression analysis was performed. It turned out that only the parameters of left atrial (LA) strain (LAS_R and LAS_CT) were significantly associated with improved quality of life, while other echocardiographic parameters, such as LV-EF, LV-GLS, and RV-GS, showed no clear association. Conclusions: CCM therapy is not only associated with improvements of left ventricular function but also restores right ventricular and left atrial strain in patients with HFrEF. Regarding the improvement in quality of life, the increase of LA strain seems to be of special importance.

1. Background

Speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) is a non-invasive method for the quantitative assessment of left ventricular myocardial function [1]. It enables an objective, user-independent analysis of myocardial deformation during the entire cardiac cycle. Strain analysis of myocardial deformation is based on measuring the change in length of a myocardial segment relative to the end-diastolic length: strain (%) = [lengthenddiastolic − lengthendsystolic)/lengthenddistolic] × 100. A distinction is made between longitudinal strain (shortening along the longitudinal axes, negative values), circumferential strain (shortening in the cross-section, negative values) and radial strain (wall thickening, positive values). STE (speckle tracking echocardiography) uses reflection patterns (“speckles”) in the myocardial tissue, the movement of which is tracked by dedicated software. This allows the regional and global myocardial function to be precisely assessed.
To quantify right ventricular (RV) function during transthoracic echocardiography, the “Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion” (TAPSE, linear measurement in mm of how far the tricuspid valve annulus moves upwards during systole) is commonly used. However, there is also the possibility of speckle tracking analysis of the RV [2]. For the determination of right ventricular longitudinal strain, only one slice plane is used, which is shown in a 4-chamber view focusing on the right ventricle. It is important that the RV apex, the free wall of the RV, and the interventricular septum are all clearly visible. During the analysis, either only the free right ventricular wall is assessed (right ventricular free wall strain, RV FWS) or all segments are assessed to determine global right ventricular strain (RV GS), respectively [3]. Reference values have already been published for both parameters, although gender-specific differences should be considered. The mean RV GS in healthy volunteers has been reported as −25.8 ± 3.0% and the mean RV free wall strain has been reported as −30.5 ± 3.9%, whereas RV FWS under −23% and RV GS under −20% are considered pathological [3,4]. The prognostic importance of RV GS has been established in the setting of pulmonary hypertension, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, or right myocardial infarction, respectively [5,6]. Several studies have also demonstrated the prognostic significance of RV GS for overall survival and hospitalization rates. In a large comparative study of right ventricular assessment with cardiac MRI, RV strain based on speckle tracking was shown to be a very strong and independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in HFrEF patients [7].
Another important parameter in acute and chronic heart failure is the assessment of LA function. LA size is typically measured planimetrically using the standardized four- and two-chamber views [8]. Although volumetry does not provide information on the function of the left atrium, it nevertheless plays an important role in prognostic assessments [6,9,10]. Measurement of LA strain is mainly used to assess diastolic LV function and is also performed in the two-chamber and four-chamber views. Three components of LA strain can be distinguished: the reservoir function (filling of the LA), the conduit function (opening of the mitral valve and filling of the LV) and the pump function (contraction of the LA). The LA S_R (Left Atrial Stain during Reservoir phase), which reflects the dilatation of the atrium, yields positive values with a reference of 39%; Conduit Strain (LA S_CD) and Left Atrial Contraction Strain (LA S_CT) are given as negative numbers with normal values of −23% or −17%, respectively [11,12]. In particular, LA S_R has been reported to be an important predictor of reduced exercise capacity and therefore an important marker for assessing the prognosis of heart failure, irrespective of its etiology [13,14]. Figure 1 illustrates the longitudinal strain of the left atrium over the cardiac cycle, highlighting the reservoir, conduit and contractile phases, respectively.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most widely used parameter in transthoracic echocardiography to assess systolic LV function. Despite some limitations, LVEF is of major importance for the classification of the different phenotypes of heart failure [4]. However, the current literature increasingly points to the potentially higher prognostic value of myocardial strain analysis.
In patients with heart failure, a combination of lifestyle modifications and pharmacological therapies forms the therapeutic basis [15,16]. In addition, cardiac devices, such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and, if indicated, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), can be implemented. For patients with HFrEF and no indication for CRT, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a further treatment option. Based on study results to date, CCM therapy appears to be particularly beneficial in symptomatic patients with an LVEF of 35% or less [17,18].
CCM technology aims to increase the contractile function of the heart by modifying intracellular signaling pathways in cardiomyocytes. It is based on non-excitatory stimulation during the absolute refractory period, which increases calcium influx, prolongs the action potential duration and thus improves the mechanical performance of the myocardium. Clinical and registry-based studies have shown that CCM can enhance systolic function and hemodynamics in chronic heart failure [17,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Although several studies have demonstrated an increase in left ventricular function induced by CCM, it is still unclear whether and to what extent CCM might also influence right ventricular and left atrial function, respectively. These questions should be addressed by the current study.

2. Methods

We conducted a prospective clinical trial at the Department of Internal Medicine II, Catholic Hospital “St. Johann Nepomuk”, Erfurt, Germany. During the period from 30 September 2021 to 10 September 2024, patients over 18 years of age with reduced left ventricular function and a clinical indication for CCM therapy (QRS complex of less than 130 ms, signs and symptoms of chronic heart failure despite guideline-directed medical therapy) were eligible for inclusion into the study. The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association of Thuringia and is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00027533). After obtaining written consent, demographic data (age, sex, height, weight), comorbidities and current medications were recorded. Additionally, NT-pro BP levels and eGFR were determined. Standardized echocardiographic examinations were conducted at baseline, 3 and 6 months, respectively, using Vivid E95 system (GE healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA), with a detailed analysis of left and right ventricular function and the determination of LV, RV and LA strain, respectively. Quality of life was evaluated using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Patients were followed every three months, with documentation of CCM therapy status and repeated echocardiographic assessment. Data regarding LV function have been reported previously [29].
During the follow-up period, CCM implantation was performed in 19 patients at a mean time of 59 ± 65 days after baseline. After implantation, CCM therapy was delivered for 6.3 ± 2.3 h per day (standard setting: 1 h “on” followed by 2.25 h “off”; voltage 7.5 V/duration 20.5 ms).

3. Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 29) (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Metric variables are presented as means with standard deviation. For comparisons between two groups, normal distribution was first tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. If a normal distribution was found, the student’s t-Test was used; otherwise, the Mann–Whitney U test was used. Data labelled as “no active CCM” refer to measurements taken before CCM-implantation, whereas “CCM active” refers to measurements under active CCM therapy.

4. Results

Between 30 December 2021 and 10 September 2024, 22 patients were included in the study. The baseline parameters of these patients are provided in Table 1.

Effects of CCM Therapy

The effects of CCM therapy on RV and LA strain as well as volumetric and functional parameters of the right ventricle are shown in Table 2; the effects on parameters of LV function have already been published previously [29]. Under active CCM therapy, improved values for RV GS, FWS, LA S _R and LA S_CT are found. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate examples of the impact of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) therapy on right ventricular strain and on left atrial strain, respectively.
In order to compare the effect size of CCM therapy on the different echocardiographic parameters, a linear regression model was used. Figure 4 shows the standardized regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals from this analysis, showing that CCM leads to comparable improvements of both LV (LVEF, GLS) and RV function (RV GS). Additionally, in this model, active CCM therapy was also associated with a significant increase in LA contraction strain (LAS CT).
We have shown previously that CCM therapy leads to an improvement of quality of life in patients with HFrEF, as seen from the increase of the KCCQ score [29]. To explore which echocardiographic parameters are linked to quality of life, we again used a linear regression model, with KCCQ as the outcome variable. Surprisingly, it turns out that parameters of LA strain seem to be especially linked to the KCCQ score, whereas neither RV strain nor LV GLS were significantly associated to quality of life in our analysis (Table 3). Furthermore, even when both age and NTproBNP levels were introduced into the regression model as confounding variables, LAS-CT continued to show a clear association with KCCQ (standardized beta: −0.28; p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

Several studies have proven that the implementation of cardiac contractility modulation leads to an improvement of both LV-EF and LV global longitudinal strain in patients with HFrEF, which is paralleled by an improved quality of life and prognosis [27,29,30,31]. The aim of the analysis presented here was to investigate whether CCM would also have an impact on the strain of the right ventricle or the left atrium, respectively. Our data now show for the first time that both RV and LA strains are indeed increased under active CCM therapy. This is of particular interest as both RV and LA strains have been reported to be closely associated with the prognosis of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF [13,14,32].
It is well established that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) leads to a better prognosis in patients with HFrEF. Besides its well-known effects on LV function, a recent meta-analysis of 30 studies showed that CRT also significantly influences right ventricular function. In particular, right ventricular fractional area change, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), and systolic pulmonary artery pressure were all positively affected by CRT [30], and it can be assumed that these effects also contribute to the clinical benefit of this therapy. In parallel, our data now show that similar findings regarding RV function also exist in heart failure patients under CCM therapy.
There are numerous studies that have demonstrated the prognostic impact of several echocardiographic parameters, including right ventricular global strain and left atrial strain, in patients with heart failure. Likewise, one study involving 1089 patients showed that both TAPSE and RV strain are independent predictors of two-year mortality in patients with tricuspid regurgitation [31], and improvements in these parameters are closely associated with enhanced survival rates [32]. However, so far there are only very few studies that describe an association between quality of life and distinct echocardiographic parameters in patients with heart failure. A study in healthy older adults could not detect a correlation of either RV strain or TAPSE with the KCCQ score [33]. Interestingly, left atrial conduit strain has been reported to be significantly associated with improved KCCQ scores following edge-to-edge repair of mitral regurgitation [34]. In line with this, our data indicate that among all tested parameters, improvements in LA strain show the strongest correlation with quality of life, as measured by KCCQ.
LA strain is increasingly recognized as a sensitive marker for diastolic function and the severity of heart failure. Specifically, a Left Atrial Stain during Reservoir phase below 18% is associated with an increased pulmonary wedge pressure (PCWP), making it particularly useful for the evaluation of diastolic function [35]. Interestingly, in animal studies in rabbits with chronic heart failure (CHF), CCM led to the significant downregulation of TGF-β1 and Smad3, which was associated with reduced collagen deposition and fibrosis [36], which in turn could be a molecular explanation for the improvement of diastolic function. Furthermore, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) has been reported to affect the myocardial protein titin by increasing its phosphorylation. This modification can improve myocardial relaxation and positively affect diastolic function as well, which is considered an additional mechanism of action of CCM in heart failure [37]. Furthermore, CCM has been shown to promote the interaction of titin with protective proteins such as α-crystallin B chain, which can additionally support the function and stability of titin [38].
In a study of 106 patients with heart failure (HFrEF), reduced atrial longitudinal strain was associated with a significantly worse prognosis for cardiovascular death or hospitalization [39]. Therapeutic measures that lead to an improvement of LA strain could therefore potentially both be of prognostic benefit and increase the quality of life in patients with heart failure. In our study, both LA and RV strains were improved by approximately 4% by CCM therapy (Table 2). To the best of our knowledge, no previous reports have quantitatively related changes in LA or RV strain to clinical outcomes. Therefore, it is rather difficult to judge whether the observed magnitude of improvement seen in our study will finally translate into prognostic benefits. On the other hand, CCM is an established therapy leading to better clinical outcomes in chronic heart failure including very challenging scenarios [17,40], so it can be assumed that the improvement of LA and RV strains might also contribute to these effects.

Limitations

One must take into consideration that the study includes only 22 patients, which somewhat limits generalizability and statistical power. Due to the limited number of patients and the study protocol, our study was not designed to provide statistical information on the effects of CCM on the incidence of clinical endpoints, such as hospitalization for heart failure or mortality. In addition, the results may have been influenced by placebo effects due to the open-label design of the study. Furthermore, the average interval between baseline assessment and CCM implantation was 59 ± 65 days, which could potentially have had an influence on the observed strain parameters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.E. and C.R.; methodology, C.R. and H.E.; investigation, C.R., P.R., M.W. and H.E.; writing—original draft preparation, C.R. and H.E.; writing—review and editing, P.R., M.W., C.R. and H.E.; funding acquisition, H.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was supported by Impulse Dynamics Germany GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Thuringian Medical Association (Approval Code: 72566/2021/132; Approval Date: 13 December 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be obtained from the authors on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

H.E. has received speaker honoraria from Impulse Dynamics Germany GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.

References

  1. Chan, J.; Shiino, K.; Obonyo, N.G.; Hanna, J.; Chamberlain, R.; Small, A.; Scalia, I.G.; Scalia, W.; Yamada, A.; Hamilton-Craig, C.R.; et al. Left Ventricular Global Strain Analysis by Two-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography: The Learning Curve. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2017, 30, 1081–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ayach, B.; Fine, N.M.; Rudski, L.G. Right ventricular strain: Measurement and clinical application. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 2018, 33, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Muraru, D.; Haugaa, K.; Donal, E.; Stankovic, I.; Voigt, J.U.; Petersen, S.E.; Popescu, B.A.; Marwick, T. Right ventricular longitudinal strain in the clinical routine: A state-of-the-art review. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2022, 23, 898–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Galderisi, M.; Cosyns, B.; Edvardsen, T.; Cardim, N.; Delgado, V.; Di Salvo, G.; Donal, E.; Sade, L.E.; Ernande, L.; Garbi, M.; et al. Standardization of adult transthoracic echocardiography reporting in agreement with recent chamber quantification, diastolic function, and heart valve disease recommendations: An expert consensus document of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2017, 18, 1301–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Muraru, D.; Onciul, S.; Peluso, D.; Soriani, N.; Cucchini, U.; Aruta, P.; Romeo, G.; Cavalli, G.; Iliceto, S.; Badano, L.P. Sex- and Method-Specific Reference Values for Right Ventricular Strain by 2-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 9, e003866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lang, R.M.; Badano, L.P.; Mor-Avi, V.; Afilalo, J.; Armstrong, A.; Ernande, L.; Flachskampf, F.A.; Foster, E.; Goldstein, S.A.; Kuznetsova, T.; et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: An update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2015, 28, 1–39.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Houard, L.; Benaets, M.B.; de Meester de Ravenstein, C.; Rousseau, M.F.; Ahn, S.A.; Amzulescu, M.S.; Roy, C.; Slimani, A.; Vancraeynest, D.; Pasquet, A.; et al. Additional Prognostic Value of 2D Right Ventricular Speckle-Tracking Strain for Prediction of Survival in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Comparative Study with Cardiac Magnetic Resonance. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2019, 12, 2373–2385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Badano, L.P.; Kolias, T.J.; Muraru, D.; Abraham, T.P.; Aurigemma, G.; Edvardsen, T.; D’Hooge, J.; Donal, E.; Fraser, A.G.; Marwick, T.; et al. Standardization of left atrial, right ventricular, and right atrial deformation imaging using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography: A consensus document of the EACVI/ASE/Industry Task Force to standardize deformation imaging. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 19, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Frydas, A.; Morris, D.A.; Belyavskiy, E.; Radhakrishnan, A.K.; Kropf, M.; Tadic, M.; Roessig, L.; Lam, C.S.P.; Shah, S.J.; Solomon, S.D.; et al. Left atrial strain as sensitive marker of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2020, 7, 1956–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cameli, M.; Incampo, E.; Mondillo, S. Left atrial deformation: Useful index for early detection of cardiac damage in chronic mitral regurgitation. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vasc. 2017, 17, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carpenito, M.; Fanti, D.; Mega, S.; Benfari, G.; Bono, M.C.; Rossi, A.; Ribichini, F.L.; Grigioni, F. The Central Role of Left Atrium in Heart Failure. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 704762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Pathan, F.; D’Elia, N.; Nolan, M.T.; Marwick, T.H.; Negishi, K. Normal Ranges of Left Atrial Strain by Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2017, 30, 59–70.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Park, J.H.; Hwang, I.C.; Park, J.J.; Park, J.B.; Cho, G.Y. Prognostic power of left atrial strain in patients with acute heart failure. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 22, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maffeis, C.; Rossi, A.; Cannata, L.; Zocco, C.; Belyavskiy, E.; Radhakrishnan, A.K.; Feuerstein, A.; Morris, D.A.; Pieske-Kraigher, E.; Pieske, B.; et al. Left atrial strain predicts exercise capacity in heart failure independently of left ventricular ejection fraction. ESC Heart Fail. 2022, 9, 842–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Park, J.J.; Park, J.B.; Park, J.H.; Cho, G.Y. Global Longitudinal Strain to Predict Mortality in Patients with Acute Heart Failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 71, 1947–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Bohm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J.; Celutkiene, J.; Chioncel, O.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3599–3726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kuschyk, J.; Falk, P.; Demming, T.; Marx, O.; Morley, D.; Rao, I.; Burkhoff, D. Long-term clinical experience with cardiac contractility modulation therapy delivered by the Optimizer Smart system. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2021, 23, 1160–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Campbell, C.M.; Kahwash, R.; Abraham, W.T. Optimizer Smart in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic heart failure. Future Cardiol. 2020, 16, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giallauria, F.; Vigorito, C.; Piepoli, M.F.; Stewart Coats, A.J. Effects of cardiac contractility modulation by non-excitatory electrical stimulation on exercise capacity and quality of life: An individual patient’s data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014, 175, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Borggrefe, M.; Burkhoff, D. Clinical effects of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) as a treatment for chronic heart failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2012, 14, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gupta, R.C.; Mishra, S.; Rastogi, S.; Wang, M.; Rousso, B.; Mika, Y.; Remppis, A.; Sabbah, H.N. Ca2+-binding proteins in dogs with heart failure: Effects of cardiac contractility modulation electrical signals. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2009, 2, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Stix, G.; Borggrefe, M.; Wolpert, C.; Hindricks, G.; Kottkamp, H.; Böcker, D.; Wichter, T.; Mika, Y.; Ben-Haim, S.; Burkhoff, D.; et al. Chronic electrical stimulation during the absolute refractory period of the myocardium improves severe heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 2004, 25, 650–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abraham, W.T.; Kuck, K.H.; Goldsmith, R.L.; Lindenfeld, J.; Reddy, V.Y.; Carson, P.E.; Mann, D.L.; Saville, B.; Parise, H.; Chan, R.; et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation. JACC Heart Fail. 2018, 6, 874–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Abi-Samra, F.; Gutterman, D. Cardiac contractility modulation: A novel approach for the treatment of heart failure. Heart Fail. Rev. 2016, 21, 645–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abraham, W.T.; Nademanee, K.; Volosin, K.; Krueger, S.; Neelagaru, S.; Raval, N.; Obel, O.; Weiner, S.; Wish, M.; Carson, P.; et al. Subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in advanced heart failure. J. Card. Fail. 2011, 17, 710–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kloppe, A.; Lawo, T.; Mijic, D.; Schiedat, F.; Muegge, A.; Lemke, B. Long-term survival with Cardiac Contractility Modulation in patients with NYHA II or III symptoms and normal QRS duration. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016, 209, 291–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kadish, A.; Nademanee, K.; Volosin, K.; Krueger, S.; Neelagaru, S.; Raval, N.; Obel, O.; Weiner, S.; Wish, M.; Carson, P.; et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of cardiac contractility modulation in advanced heart failure. Am. Heart J. 2011, 161, 329–337.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Borggrefe, M.M.; Lawo, T.; Butter, C.; Schmidinger, H.; Lunati, M.; Pieske, B.; Misier, A.R.; Curnis, A.; Bocker, D.; Remppis, A.; et al. Randomized, double blind study of non-excitatory, cardiac contractility modulation electrical impulses for symptomatic heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29, 1019–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raab, C.; Roehl, P.; Wiora, M.; Ebelt, H. Cardiac Contractility Modulation Improves Left Ventricular Function, Including Global Longitudinal Strain, in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sidiropoulos, G.; Karakasis, P.; Antoniadis, A.; Saplaouras, A.; Karamitsos, T.; Fragakis, N. The Effect of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Right Ventricular Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 4173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bannehr, M.; Kahn, U.; Liebchen, J.; Okamoto, M.; Hähnel, V.; Georgi, C.; Dworok, V.; Edlinger, C.; Lichtenauer, M.; Kücken, T.; et al. Right Ventricular Longitudinal Strain Predicts Survival in Patients with Functional Tricuspid Regurgitation. Can. J. Cardiol. 2021, 37, 1086–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ji, M.; Wu, W.; He, L.; Gao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, Y.; Qian, M.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Xie, M.; et al. Right Ventricular Longitudinal Strain in Patients with Heart Failure. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jani, V.P.; Strom, J.B.; Gami, A.; Beussink-Nelson, L.; Patel, R.; Michos, E.D.; Shah, S.J.; Freed, B.H.; Mukherjee, M. Optimal Method for Assessing Right Ventricular to Pulmonary Arterial Coupling in Older Healthy Adults: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am. J. Cardiol. 2024, 222, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ro, R.; Prandi, F.R.; Zaid, S.; Anastasius, M.O.; Tang, G.H.L.; Seetharam, K.; Argulian, E.; Massaro, G.; Sharma, S.; Kini, A.; et al. Acute effect of edge-to-edge repair of mitral regurgitation on left heart mechanics and health status. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 23, 787–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Inoue, K.; Khan, F.H.; Remme, E.W.; Ohte, N.; García-Izquierdo, E.; Chetrit, M.; Moñivas-Palomero, V.; Mingo-Santos, S.; Andersen, Ø.S.; Gude, E.; et al. Determinants of left atrial reservoir and pump strain and use of atrial strain for evaluation of left ventricular filling pressure. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 23, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, F.; Dang, Y.; Li, Y.; Hao, Q.; Li, R.; Qi, X. Cardiac Contractility Modulation Attenuate Myocardial Fibrosis by Inhibiting TGF-beta1/Smad3 Signaling Pathway in a Rabbit Model of Chronic Heart Failure. Cell. Physiol. Biochem. 2016, 39, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tschope, C.; Van Linthout, S.; Spillmann, F.; Klein, O.; Biewener, S.; Remppis, A.; Gutterman, D.; Linke, W.A.; Pieske, B.; Hamdani, N.; et al. Cardiac contractility modulation signals improve exercise intolerance and maladaptive regulation of cardiac key proteins for systolic and diastolic function in HFpEF. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016, 203, 1061–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tschope, C.; Kherad, B.; Klein, O.; Lipp, A.; Blaschke, F.; Gutterman, D.; Burkhoff, D.; Hamdani, N.; Spillmann, F.; Van Linthout, S. Cardiac contractility modulation: Mechanisms of action in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and beyond. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2019, 21, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mandoli, G.E.; Pastore, M.C.; Benfari, G.; Setti, M.; Nistor, D.; D’Ascenzi, F.; Focardi, M.; Baccani, B.; Patti, G.; Valente, S.; et al. New echocardiographic indices of shift to biventricular failure to optimize risk stratification of chronic heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2022, 9, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pierucci, N.; La Fazia, V.M.; Gianni, C.; Mohanty, S.; Lavalle, C.; Cishek, M.B.; Canby, R.C.; Natale, A. Cardiac contractility modulation in a patient with refractory systolic heart failure following orthotopic heart transplant. HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2024, 10, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 14 04484 g001
Figure 1. Example of left atrial strain analysis using speckle tracking echocardiography.
Figure 1. Example of left atrial strain analysis using speckle tracking echocardiography.
Jcm 14 04484 g001
Jcm 14 04484 g002
Figure 2. Example of right ventricular strain in a patient at baseline and after 6 months of CCM therapy.
Figure 2. Example of right ventricular strain in a patient at baseline and after 6 months of CCM therapy.
Jcm 14 04484 g002
Jcm 14 04484 g003
Figure 3. Example of left atrial strain in a patient at baseline and after 6 months of CCM therapy.
Figure 3. Example of left atrial strain in a patient at baseline and after 6 months of CCM therapy.
Jcm 14 04484 g003
Jcm 14 04484 g004
Figure 4. Influence of CCM therapy on echocardiographic parameters of LV, LA and RV function, respectively. The graph shows the standardized regression coefficients (linear regression model) with 95% confidence intervals to allow a comparison of the effect sizes.
Figure 4. Influence of CCM therapy on echocardiographic parameters of LV, LA and RV function, respectively. The graph shows the standardized regression coefficients (linear regression model) with 95% confidence intervals to allow a comparison of the effect sizes.
Jcm 14 04484 g004
Table 1. Demographic parameters: estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), NT-pro BP, and medical history at baseline.
Table 1. Demographic parameters: estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), NT-pro BP, and medical history at baseline.
ParameterMean (All Patients; N = 22)Ischemic Cardiomyopathy [11]Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy [11]
Male sex16 (73%)9 (81.8%)8 (63.6%)
Age [years]69.6 ± 6.469.0 ± 7.770.3 ± 5.1
Hight [cm]170.6 ± 10.0174.1 ± 9.1167.1 ± 10.1
Weight [kg]95.5 ± 21.9100.0 ± 23.291.0 ± 20.5
GFR [ml/min*1.73 m2]62.4 ± 17.560.3 ± 13.064.4 ± 21.5
NT-pro BP [pg/mL]2669.2 ± 3716.81528.5 ± 1809.03810.0 ± 4781.2
NYHA stage
NYHA I0.0 (0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
NYHA II4 (18.18%)4 (36.4%)0 (0.0%)
NYHA III12 (54.6%)6 (54.5%)6 (54.5%)
NYHA IV6 (27.3%)1 (9.1%)5 (45.5%)
Hypertension18 (82.8%)9 (81.8%)9 (81.8%)
Diabetes mellitus14 (64.6%)9 (81.8%)5 (45.5%)
Coronary heart disease11 (50.0%)11 (100.0%)0 (0.0%)
History of PCI11 (50.0%)11 (100.0%)0 (0.0%)
History of CABG1 (4.6%)1 (9.1%)0 (0.0%)
History of heart value surgery6 (27.3%)3 (27.3%)3 (27.3%)
Antiplatelet therapy (APT)
Single APT9 (40.9%)6 (54.5%)3 (27.3%)
Dual APT2 (9.1%)1 (9.1%)1 (9.1%)
Non11 (50.0%)4 (36.4%)7 (63.6%)
(D)OAC11 (50.0%)6 (54.5%)5 (45.5%)
ß-blockers19 (86.4%)10 (90.9%)9 (81.8%)
ACE inhibitors3 (13.6%)2 (18.2%)1 (9.1%)
ARB1 (4.6%)1 (9.1%)0 (0.0%)
Sacubitril/Valsartan18 (81.8%)8 (72.7%)10 (90.9%)
MRA15 (68.2%)6 (54.5%)9 (81.8%)
SGLT2 inhibitors14 (64.6%7 (63.6%)7 (63.6%)
Diuretic
KCCQ		19 (86.4%)
31.3 ± 16.8		10 (90.9%)
37.7 ± 19.0		9 (81.8%)
24.9 ± 11.8
Table 2. Parameters of transthoracic echocardiography depending on the delivered therapy (CCM active or no active CCM).
Table 2. Parameters of transthoracic echocardiography depending on the delivered therapy (CCM active or no active CCM).
ParameterCCM Active (N = 22)No Active CCM (N = 39)p-Value
RV GS [%]−13.7 ± 4.5−10.1 ± 5.0<0.05
FWS [%]−14.6 ± 7.3−10.3 ± 10.2<0.05
LA S_R [%]19.7 ± 1.015.3 ± 10.2<0.05
LA S_CD [%]−9.0 ± 5.0−8.1 ± 5.4n.s.
LA S_CT [%]−11.5 ± 7.0−7.1 ± 8.5<0.05
TAPSE [mm]18.8 ± 5.117.6 ± 5.6n.s.
Trvmax [m/s]2.6± 0.42.9 ± 1.3n.s.
RVDd [mm]39.2 ± 16.938.8± 7.5n.s.
RVDs [mm]30.2 ± 17.530.3 ± 7.0n.s.
RV GS: global right ventricular strain; FWS: right ventricular free wall strain; LA S_R: Left Atrial Stain during Reservoir phase; LA S_CD: Left Atrial Conduit Strain; LA S_CT: Left Atrial Contraction Strain; TAPSE: Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion; Trvmax: maximum velocity of tricuspid regurgitation; RVDd: diameter of the right ventricle in diastole; RVDs: diameter of the right ventricle in systole. n.s.: not significant
Table 3. Influence of echocardiographic parameters on quality of life (KCCQ score) in patients with HFrEF (linear regression analysis; univariate analysis).
Table 3. Influence of echocardiographic parameters on quality of life (KCCQ score) in patients with HFrEF (linear regression analysis; univariate analysis).
VariableStandardized Betap-Value
Age−0.1120.39
LVEF0.1630.210
LV GLS0.0550.673
TRVmax−0.1730.23
RV GS−0.1470.261
FWS−0.0700.597
LAS_R0.2700.037
LAS_CD−0.0810.536
LAS_CT−0.3210.012
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Raab, C.; Roehl, P.; Wiora, M.; Ebelt, H. Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation on Right Ventricular and Left Atrial Strain in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 4484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134484

AMA Style

Raab C, Roehl P, Wiora M, Ebelt H. Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation on Right Ventricular and Left Atrial Strain in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(13):4484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134484

Chicago/Turabian Style

Raab, Cornelia, Peter Roehl, Matthias Wiora, and Henning Ebelt. 2025. "Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation on Right Ventricular and Left Atrial Strain in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 13: 4484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134484

APA Style

Raab, C., Roehl, P., Wiora, M., & Ebelt, H. (2025). Effects of Cardiac Contractility Modulation on Right Ventricular and Left Atrial Strain in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(13), 4484. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14134484

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop