4.6 Article

Sex differences in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation indications and outcomes: lessons from the Nationwide Israeli-ICD Registry

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1175-1180

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euu015

关键词

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators; Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Women; Outcomes; Registry

资金

  1. Boston Scientific
  2. Israeli Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in certain high arrhythmic risk populations. However, there are sex differences regarding both the utilization and the benefit of these devices. Using a prospective national ICD registry, we aim to compare the indications for ICD implantation as well as outcomes in implanted women vs. men. All subjects implanted with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRTD) in Israel between July 2010 and February 2013 were included. A total of 3544 subjects constructed the baseline cohort, of whom 615 (17%) were women. Women had the same age (64 years) and rate of secondary prevention indication (26%) as men. However, women were more likely than men to have significant heart failure symptoms (52 vs. 45%), QRS > 120 ms (41 vs. 36%), and a higher rate of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (54 vs. 21%, all P values < 0.05). Using multivariate analysis, women were more likely to undergo CRTD implantation (odds ratio = 1.8, P < 0.01). Follow-up data were available for 1518 subjects with a mean follow-up of 12 months. During follow-up, there were no significant differences among genders in the rate of any single or the combined outcomes of appropriate device therapies, heart failure admissions, or death. First-year re-intervention rate was double among women (5.6 vs. 3.0%, P < 0.01). In real-world setting, women implanted with an ICD differ significantly from men in their baseline characteristics and in the use of CRTD devices. These, however, did not translate into outcome differences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据