4.2 Article

Clinical course and implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in postinfarction women with severe left ventricular dysfunction

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages 1265-1270

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2005.00224.x

Keywords

implantable cardioverter defibrillator; women; gender; prognosis; heart failure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Women. Background: There are limited data regarding implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in postinfarction women with severe left ventricular dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of cardiac events and effects of ICD therapy in women as compared to men enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II). Methods and Results: Among 1,232 patients enrolled in MADIT II, there were 192 (16%) women and 1,040 (84%) men. When compared to men, women had an increased frequency of NYHA class >= II (70 vs 63%; P = 0.067), hypertension (60% vs 52%; P = 0.047), diabetes (42% vs 34%; P = 0.027), and LBBB (25% vs 17%; P = 0.011), and less frequent CABG surgery (42% vs 60%; P < 0.001). The 2-year cumulative mortality in patients randomized to conventional therapy was not significantly different in women and men (30% and 20%, respectively; P = 0.19). Adjusting for relevant clinical covariates, the hazard ratios for ICD effectiveness were similar in women (0.57; 95% CI = 0.28-1.18; P = 0.132) and men (0.66; 95% CI = 0.48-0.91; P = 0.011). The risk of appropriate ICD therapy for VT/VF was lower in women than in men (hazard ratio = 0.60 for female vs male gender; 95% CI = 0.37-0.98; P = 0.039). Conclusions: MADIT II women had similar mortality and similar ICD effectiveness when compared to men. MADIT II women with ICDs had a lower risk of arrhythmic events with fewer episodes of ventricular tachycardia than men.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available