Skip to content

Arrythmia Burden in Cardiac Contractility Modulation (CCM)

Arrhythmia Burden in Patients With Impulse Dynamics Optimizer Cardiac Contractility Modulation (CCM) Device Implantation: Retrospective and Prospective Evaluation

Status
Terminated
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05704426
Acronym
ABC
Enrollment
2
Registered
2023-01-30
Start date
2023-05-01
Completion date
2023-07-18
Last updated
2024-08-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Arrythmia, Atrial Fibrillation

Keywords

Impulse Dynamics Optimizer Device, Heart failure, Cardiovascular implantable electronic device, Atrial Fibrillation, Reduced ejection fraction, Internal cardioverter defibrillator, Permanent pacemaker, Arrythmia, Cardiac Contractility Modulation

Brief summary

The Impulse Dynamics Optimizer Device is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved; commercially available device indicated for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Many candidates of this device have a previously implanted cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)- internal cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or permanent pacemaker (PM). Patients with heart failure are at high risk for both atrial and ventricular cardiac arrhythmias. The aim of this study is to evaluate patients for Atrial fibrillation (AF) burden episode data obtained from interrogation of their CIED 8 months or greater after Optimizer implant and compare arrhythmia burden 6 months before Optimizer Cardiac Contractility Modulation (CCM) device insertion to 8 months or greater after Optimizer insertion (after 2 month blanking period).

Interventions

DEVICEImpulse Dynamics Optimizer Device

The Impulse Dynamics Optimizer is indicated for patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III congestive heart failure (CHF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 25 and 45% who are not candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The Optimizer device requires a minimally invasive implant by a cardiac electrophysiologist with two transvenous pacemaker wires implanted into the right ventricular septum and attached to a generator in an infraclavicular region, much like a pacemaker. The Optimizer device provides CCM through improved calcium handling and has been shown to reverse the negative remodeling of the left ventricle seen in HFrEF and improve left ventricular contractile strength.

Sponsors

Impulse Dynamics
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Hackensack Meridian Health
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
OTHER

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. 1%≤AF burden≤99% in the 6 month period prior to Optimizer implant as documented the patient's CIED 2. 18 years of age or older on day of signing consent 3. Any gender 4. Functional pacemaker or ICD and using remote follow-up for their CEID 5. Not scheduled for planned catheter ablation or cardioversion 6. Ability to sign consent in English or Spanish

Exclusion criteria

1. Permanent atrial fibrillation 2. Pregnancy (in prospective arm only) 3. Expected survival \<1 year

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Burden8 months post optimizer implantationCompare the AF burden noted 6 months pre Optimizer implant to 6 post Optimizer months (post Optimizer months 3-8), after 2 month blanking period

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Retrospective
Patients with available data for 6 months before the implantation of the Optimizer implantation and at least 8 months after the implantation of the optimizer at the time the study is initiated and patients with available data for 6 months before the implantation of the Optimizer implantation, but less than 8 months of follow up after Optimizer implantation at the time of the study initiation.
2
Total2

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicRetrospective
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
2 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
0 Participants
Age, Continuous80 years
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
1 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
2 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
2 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 0
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 0

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Burden

Compare the AF burden noted 6 months pre Optimizer implant to 6 post Optimizer months (post Optimizer months 3-8), after 2 month blanking period

Time frame: 8 months post optimizer implantation

Population: AF burden was defined as the average minutes of AF/day. Outcome is reported at the pre implantation (pre-ccm) and at 6 months post (post ccm),

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
RetrospectiveChange in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Burdenpre ccm19.5 average minutes of AF/day
RetrospectiveChange in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Burdenpost ccm10.2 average minutes of AF/day

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026