TL;DR
Turn quiet afternoons into listening time
- Thousands of audiobooks, podcasts and originals
- Listen on your phone, tablet or Echo — also offline
- Cancel anytime
Researchers reported new analyses suggesting cardiac microcurrent therapy may improve exercise measures in some people with heart failure, alongside early results for a less invasive implant approach. The evidence remains preliminary, and a planned 60-person sham-controlled trial is expected to test the therapy more rigorously.
Presentations at the Heart Failure Society of America annual meeting reported further early evidence for cardiac microcurrent therapy, including a blinded-laboratory reanalysis of exercise-test results and initial comparisons involving a less invasive implant. The findings suggest potential benefit for some people with heart failure, but researchers and a session discussant stressed that small studies and unusually large reported effects leave major questions for larger trials to answer.
In a post hoc analysis of the C-MIC II trial, researchers re-evaluated cardiopulmonary exercise tests using a blinded core laboratory. At six months, the analysis included 42 participants, whose average age was about 62; more than 70% were men, and average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 30%. The reported change in weight-adjusted peak oxygen uptake favored the device by 2.70 mL/min/kg. Other reported measures included a 1.0 versus 0.1 change in peak metabolic equivalents and a 13.8% versus 0.5% change in percent-predicted peak VO2. The absolute peak VO2 comparison was 208.7 versus 7.3 mL/min, with P=0.079; the other two comparisons had P=0.021.
Dragana Kosevic, a physician at Cardiovascular Institute Dedinje in Belgrade, Serbia, presented the analysis. She said the objective exercise-test findings supported functional benefits observed in C-MIC II, while calling for larger randomized studies to confirm them. The reanalysis adds a blinded review to a trial whose original exercise-test measurements were reported by study sites, but only five of seven sites contributed data to the new analysis.
A separate presentation described the subcutaneous approach studied in C-MIC III. The generator and lead are placed under the skin, with lead position checked by fluoroscopy; the procedure is performed in a catheterization laboratory under moderate sedation. Researchers matched 10 recipients of the subcutaneous implant with 10 people who had received a surgical implant and 10 controls from C-MIC II. They reported comparable improvement in ejection fraction, six-minute walking distance and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. The comparison was small and matched across trials, rather than a large randomized test of the two procedures.
Testing a Less Invasive Implant
If confirmed, C-MIC could offer another device-based option for people with heart failure who remain symptomatic despite existing care. The subcutaneous method may also avoid the surgical epicardial implantation used in C-MIC II, potentially making delivery more accessible. But the studies described so far do not establish that the device improves outcomes such as survival or prevents hospitalizations. The distinction matters: changes in exercise capacity, heart function and reported quality of life are encouraging study measures, not proof of long-term clinical benefit.
The scale of the reported exercise-test effect drew scrutiny. John Teerlink, a physician with the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System and UCSF Medical Center, questioned whether the magnitude was credible while expressing support for further research. His reaction underscores the central issue: the signal merits testing, but its size and reliability remain uncertain.
cardiac microcurrent therapy device
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From C-MIC II to C-MIC IV
C-MIC was developed around the idea that electrical-field changes in heart muscle may be associated with tissue swelling and left ventricular dysfunction. The therapy is thought to alter activated fibroblasts in a way that could reduce fibrotic activity and stiffness. This is the proposed mechanism, not an established explanation for a clinical benefit.
C-MIC II randomized 65 people with refractory, non-ischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to surgical implantation or control. The study reported improvements in ejection fraction, symptoms, functional capacity and quality of life at six months, while peak VO2 had only trended toward benefit in the initial analysis. C-MIC III then examined a first-in-human subcutaneous approach. Its earlier six-month results, as reported at the meeting, included improvements from baseline in ejection fraction, walking distance and quality-of-life scores. The small size and study designs limit what can be concluded from those results.
“I am highly skeptical of the magnitude of the benefit that you folks are showing, but I remain actually very enthusiastic about moving this forward.”
— John Teerlink, session discussant
subcutaneous implant for heart failure
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Small Samples, Open Questions
The evidence presented remains preliminary. C-MIC II enrolled only 65 people and was open-label; its CPET reanalysis covered 42 people and did not include data from every site. C-MIC III’s subcutaneous first-in-human evidence involved only 10 recipients, and comparisons with surgical recipients and controls relied on matching between studies. The groups also differed at baseline: C-MIC III participants had more advanced disease, including lower ejection fractions and greater heart enlargement.
It is not yet clear whether the apparent benefits will hold in a larger sham-controlled study, how durable any effects are, or whether the device changes major clinical outcomes. Teerlink also raised questions about possible interactions with existing devices and interventions, including defibrillators, resynchronization therapy, baroreflex activation therapy, cardiac contractility modulation and coronary stents. The meeting report did not establish whether such interactions occur or how they would be managed.
heart failure exercise therapy device
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Sham-Controlled Trial Ahead
The next planned test is C-MIC IV, a sham-controlled crossover trial expected to enroll 60 people with ejection fractions of 20% to 40%. According to Stefan Simovic, who presented the C-MIC III comparison, the study is set to use the subcutaneous device and include people with both ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure. That would broaden eligibility beyond the earlier studies, which excluded ischemic cardiomyopathy and people with previously implanted devices.
The source report did not provide a trial start date, completion timeline or results. The trial’s findings will be needed to judge whether the early signals persist under a more rigorous design and to clarify safety questions, including use alongside other cardiac devices. Until those data are available, the therapy should be regarded as investigational rather than an established heart failure treatment.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is cardiac microcurrent therapy?
C-MIC is an implanted device-based therapy intended to deliver microcurrents to the heart. Researchers propose that it may affect tissue changes related to heart muscle stiffness, but the mechanism and clinical benefits still require testing.
What did the new C-MIC II analysis find?
A blinded core-laboratory reanalysis of exercise tests in 42 participants reported results favoring C-MIC on several measures, including a 2.70 mL/min/kg change in weight-adjusted peak oxygen uptake. The analysis was post hoc and does not by itself confirm the therapy’s effectiveness.
Is the subcutaneous implant proven to work as well as surgery?
No. The meeting presentation compared small, matched groups drawn from different studies. Its findings offer early evidence, but 10 subcutaneous recipients are not enough to establish equivalence or long-term safety.
What is the next major study?
The planned C-MIC IV sham-controlled crossover trial is expected to enroll 60 people with ejection fractions between 20% and 40%, including people with ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure. A timeline and results were not provided in the report.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
