ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
Cardiac Contractility Modulation and Arrhythmic Burden in Heart Failure: Mechanistic Rationale, Clinical Evidence, and Future Perspectives.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an implantable device-based therapy that delivers biphasic, non-excitatory electrical signals to the ventricular myocardium during the absolute refractory period. By enhancing contractile performance without inducing depolarization or altering ventricular activation, CCM acts as bioelectronic myocardial conditioning. Current evidence supports its use in selected patients with symptomatic heart failure, reduced or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, narrow QRS duration, persistent symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy, and no indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy. In this population, CCM improves functional status and quality of life, whereas evidence for reductions in mortality or recurrent heart failure hospitalization remains less definitive. Whether CCM also reduces arrhythmic burden remains uncertain. Candidates for CCM frequently exhibit atrial and ventricular remodeling, neurohormonal activation, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and vulnerability to atrial fibrillation, ventricular arrhythmias, and device therapies. Mechanistically, CCM may render the failing myocardium less arrhythmogenic through coordinated effects on calcium handling, electromechanical remodeling, fibrosis-related substrate, contractile efficiency, and heart-failure stability. However, pivotal trials were not designed to assess arrhythmic endpoints, leaving the relationship between CCM and arrhythmic burden insufficiently characterized. This review summarizes CCM evidence, mechanistic rationale, available arrhythmic signals, device-related considerations, and future research priorities for prospective studies in this evolving field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.