Table 2.
Impact of CCM on NYHA, MLWHFQ, and LV ejection fraction over time and by EF class
| EF group | NYHA | MLWHFQ | LV ejection fraction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (n) | Value (n) | Δ from baseline | % (n) | Δ from baseline | ||
| Baseline | EF <35% | 2.9 ± 0.5 (114) | 45.4 ± 19.6 (104) | – | 26.1 ± 5.0 (114) | – |
| *EF ≥35% | 2.8 ± 0.4 (28) | 44.6 ± 17.3 (25) | – | 37.3 ± 3.1 (28) | – | |
| Total | 2.9 ± 0.5 (143) | 45.0 ± 19.2 (130) | – | 28.3 ± 6.4 (142) | – | |
| 6 Months | EF <35% | 2.3 ± 0.8* (87) | 30.0 ± 19.8 (66) | −16.4 ± 20.8* | 28.2 ± 8.3 (68) | 2.6 ± 7.2* |
| EF ≥35% | 1.9 ± 0.8* (21) | 37.3 ± 18.8 (18) | −9.7 ± 17.9 | 40.5 ± 6.2 (15) | 3.2 ± 6.6 | |
| Total | 2.2 ± 0.8* (109) | 31.4 ± 19.7 (22) | −15.1 ± 20.3* | 30.5 ± 9.2 (83) | 2.7 ± 7.1* | |
| 12 Months | EF <35% | 2.2 ± 0.8* (79) | 32.2 ± 21.9 (61) | −12.3 ± 22.8* | 28.9 ± 8.8 (62) | 3.3 ± 7.8* |
| EF ≥35% | 2.4 ± 0.8* (19) | 35.3 ± 14.5 (15) | −8.9 ± 9.9 | 39.1 ± 4.3 (17) | 2.4 ± 4.7 | |
| Total | 2.2 ± 0.8* (99) | 32.8 ± 20.6 (76) | −11.6 ± 20.9* | 31.7 ± 13.1 (79) | 3.1 ± 7.3* | |
| 18 Months | EF <35% | 2.2 ± 0.7* (70) | 32.5 ± 24.3 (59) | −13.0 ± 25.6* | 31.1 ± 10.3 (55) | 5.3 ± 9.8* |
| EF ≥35% | 2.1 ± 0.6* (15) | 35.0 ± 16.0 (11) | −4.8 ± 15.9 | 39.3 ± 4.9 (11) | 2.4 ± 5.7 | |
| Total | 2.2 ± 0.7* (86) | 32.9 ± 23.1 (70) | −11.7 ± 24.5* | 32.0 ± 10.5 (66) | 4.8 ± 9.3* | |
| 24 Months | EF <35% | 2.2 ± 0.9* (52) | 30.8 ± 23.6 (44) | −15.0 ± 21.6* | 33.0 ± 9.1 (37) | 7.5 ± 9.3* |
| EF ≥35% | 2.3 ± 0.7* (15) | 34.5 ± 18.7 (14) | −9.4 ± 18 | 40.2 ± 5.6 (13) | 3.5 ± 6.0 | |
| Total | 2.2 ± 0.8* (68) | 31.2 ± 22.5 (59) | −13.6 ± 20.6* | 34.9 ± 8.8 (51) | 6.5 ± 8.7* | |
All data are presented as mean ± SD; n’s reflect numbers of subjects with available data. LV ejection fraction (EF; mean±SD). Means and standard deviations of available raw data are shown. P values at individual time points were determined by the mixed model using Sidaks method for multiple comparisons. *p < 0.05 vs. corresponding baseline