European Heart Journal Study
Link to study: https://softwavetrt.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Cardiac-Study-Holfeld-Schaden.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/45/29/2634/7695522?login=false
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv224pxz418o
The study led by Dr. Johannes Holfeld from the Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria performed an interim analysis after enrolling 63 patients suffering from ischemic heart failure. All of the patients required surgical intervention and were given shockwave treatment during surgery after the bypass was established. Half of the patients in the study were put in a control group and given a sham treatment while the other half were given cardiac shockwave therapy. The patients given the shockwave treatment showed significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as early as six months after the procedure. After a year, the LVEF improvement measured 11.3% in the shockwave patients, compared to an LVEF improvement of 6.3% for the sham group of patients. Such changes in LVEF are known to cause significant improvements in survival and reductions in heart failure hospitalizations. In addition, the shockwave patients were also able to walk significantly farther and reported a higher quality of life. Some patients who required assistance with everyday activities were able to again take care of themselves.
Due to the results of the research, the study was terminated in agreement with the ethics committee as it was determined to be unethical to withhold the cardiac shockwave treatment from the sham group of patients.
“To be able to improve a patient’s ejection fraction 36% with a single shockwave treatment not only revolutionizes the treatment for ischemic heart disease but lays the foundation for the repair or regeneration of other organs as well.”
Bottom line: When researchers used shockwave therapy directly on the heart during open-heart bypass surgery, patients who received the treatment had significantly greater improvements in heart-pumping function and walking capacity after one year compared with the control group. The results were so strong, that ethics committee determined that it was no longer ethical to continue withholding the treatment from patients in the control group.
