Cargando…

Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) include pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy. This study aimed to assess CIED implantation and outcomes by sex and indication. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with cardio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Silva, Kasun, Nassar, Natasha, Badgery‐Parker, Tim, Kumar, Saurabh, Taylor, Lee, Kovoor, Pramesh, Zaman, Sarah, Wilson, Andrew, Chow, Clara K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35943057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.025428
_version_ 1784794236332277760
author De Silva, Kasun
Nassar, Natasha
Badgery‐Parker, Tim
Kumar, Saurabh
Taylor, Lee
Kovoor, Pramesh
Zaman, Sarah
Wilson, Andrew
Chow, Clara K.
author_facet De Silva, Kasun
Nassar, Natasha
Badgery‐Parker, Tim
Kumar, Saurabh
Taylor, Lee
Kovoor, Pramesh
Zaman, Sarah
Wilson, Andrew
Chow, Clara K.
author_sort De Silva, Kasun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) include pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy. This study aimed to assess CIED implantation and outcomes by sex and indication. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with cardiovascular hospitalizations in New South Wales, Australia (2008 to 2018). CIED implantation in patients with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, and syncope were examined. Subcategories (complete heart block, atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest, sick sinus syndrome, and ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy) were investigated. Primary outcome was implantation of CIEDs in men versus women adjusted for age and comorbidities. Secondary outcomes were trends over time, time to implant, length of stay, emergency status, and 30‐day survival. Of 1 291 258 patients with cardiovascular admissions, 287 563 had arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope and 29 080 (2.3%) received a CIED (22 472 pacemakers, 6808 defibrillators, 3207 resynchronization therapy). Women with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope were less likely to have pacemakers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76–0.80]), defibrillators (aOR, 0.4, [95% CI, 0.40–0.45]) and resynchronization therapy (aOR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.61–0.71]). Differences persisted across subcategories, including fewer pacemakers in complete heart block (aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80–0.98]) and syncope (aOR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63–0.79]); fewer defibrillators in ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61–0.77]); and less resynchronization therapy in cardiomyopathy (aOR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.51–0.75]). Men and women receiving devices had higher 30‐day survival compared with those who did not receive a device, and 30‐day survival was similar between men and women receiving devices. CONCLUSIONS: Lower CIED implantation was seen in women versus men, across nearly all indications, including complete heart block and ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest. The underuse of cardiac devices among women may arguably reflect a sex bias and requires further research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9496306
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94963062022-09-30 Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort De Silva, Kasun Nassar, Natasha Badgery‐Parker, Tim Kumar, Saurabh Taylor, Lee Kovoor, Pramesh Zaman, Sarah Wilson, Andrew Chow, Clara K. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) include pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy. This study aimed to assess CIED implantation and outcomes by sex and indication. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with cardiovascular hospitalizations in New South Wales, Australia (2008 to 2018). CIED implantation in patients with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, and syncope were examined. Subcategories (complete heart block, atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest, sick sinus syndrome, and ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy) were investigated. Primary outcome was implantation of CIEDs in men versus women adjusted for age and comorbidities. Secondary outcomes were trends over time, time to implant, length of stay, emergency status, and 30‐day survival. Of 1 291 258 patients with cardiovascular admissions, 287 563 had arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope and 29 080 (2.3%) received a CIED (22 472 pacemakers, 6808 defibrillators, 3207 resynchronization therapy). Women with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope were less likely to have pacemakers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76–0.80]), defibrillators (aOR, 0.4, [95% CI, 0.40–0.45]) and resynchronization therapy (aOR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.61–0.71]). Differences persisted across subcategories, including fewer pacemakers in complete heart block (aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80–0.98]) and syncope (aOR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63–0.79]); fewer defibrillators in ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61–0.77]); and less resynchronization therapy in cardiomyopathy (aOR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.51–0.75]). Men and women receiving devices had higher 30‐day survival compared with those who did not receive a device, and 30‐day survival was similar between men and women receiving devices. CONCLUSIONS: Lower CIED implantation was seen in women versus men, across nearly all indications, including complete heart block and ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest. The underuse of cardiac devices among women may arguably reflect a sex bias and requires further research. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9496306/ /pubmed/35943057 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.025428 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research
De Silva, Kasun
Nassar, Natasha
Badgery‐Parker, Tim
Kumar, Saurabh
Taylor, Lee
Kovoor, Pramesh
Zaman, Sarah
Wilson, Andrew
Chow, Clara K.
Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort
title Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort
title_full Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort
title_fullStr Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort
title_full_unstemmed Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort
title_short Sex‐Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10‐Year Statewide Patient Cohort
title_sort sex‐based differences in selected cardiac implantable electronic device use: a 10‐year statewide patient cohort
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9496306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35943057
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.025428
work_keys_str_mv AT desilvakasun sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT nassarnatasha sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT badgeryparkertim sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT kumarsaurabh sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT taylorlee sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT kovoorpramesh sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT zamansarah sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT wilsonandrew sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort
AT chowclarak sexbaseddifferencesinselectedcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceusea10yearstatewidepatientcohort