4.7 Article

Gender-related differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation in Europe -: A report from the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 5, Pages 572-577

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.047

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This study sought to investigate gender-related differences in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Europe. Background Gender-related differences may play a significant role in AF. Methods We analyzed the data of 5,333 patients (42% female) enrolled in the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation. Results Compared with men, the women were older, had a lower quality of life (QoL), had more comorbidities, more often had heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular systolic function (18% vs. 7%, p < 0.001), and less often had HF with systolic dysfunction (17% vs. 26%, p < 0.001). Among patients with typical AF symptoms (56% of women, 49% of men), there was no gender-related difference in the choice of rate or rhythm control. Among patients with atypical or no symptoms (44% of women, 51% of men), women less frequently underwent rhythm control (39% vs. 51%, p < 0.001) than did men. Women underwent less electrical cardioversion (22% vs. 28%, p < 0.001). Prescription of oral anticoagulants was identical (65%) in both genders. One-year outcome was similar except that women had a higher chance for stroke (odds ratio 1.83 in multivariable regression analysis, p = 0.019). Conclusions Women with AF had more comorbidities, more HF with preserved systolic function, and a lower QoL than men. In the large group with atypical or no symptoms, women were treated appropriately more conservatively with less rhythm control than men. Women had a higher chance for stroke. Long-term QoL changes and other morbidities and mortality were similar.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available