Gender differences in clinical outcome and primary prevention defibrillator benefit in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Women are underrepresented in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials, and data on the benefit of ICD therapy in this subgroup are controversial. Objective The purpose of this study was to better evaluate the benefit of prophylactic ICD in women by performin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heart rhythm 2010-07, Vol.7 (7), p.876-882
Hauptverfasser: Santangeli, Pasquale, MD, Pelargonio, Gemma, MD, PhD, Russo, Antonio Dello, MD, PhD, Casella, Michela, MD, PhD, Bisceglia, Caterina, MD, Bartoletti, Stefano, MD, Santarelli, Pietro, MD, Di Biase, Luigi, MD, Natale, Andrea, MD, FHRS
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Women are underrepresented in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials, and data on the benefit of ICD therapy in this subgroup are controversial. Objective The purpose of this study was to better evaluate the benefit of prophylactic ICD in women by performing a meta-analysis of primary prevention ICD trials that assessed gender differences on the end-points of total mortality, appropriate ICD intervention, and survival benefit of ICD compared with placebo. Methods PubMed, CENTRAL, and other databases were searched in October 2009. Studies were included only if they examined gender differences in the specified end-points, providing the hazard ratio (HR) obtained in multiple Cox regression analyses, and adjusted for all confounding variables. Results We retrieved five studies (MADIT-II, MUSTT, SCD-HeFT, DEFINITE, COMPANION) that enrolled 7,229 patients (22% women) with dilated cardiomyopathy (74% ischemic). Compared to men, women had no significant difference in overall mortality (HR 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–1.39, P = .84) but experienced significantly less appropriate ICD interventions (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49–0.82, P ≤.001). The benefit of ICD on mortality was significantly higher in men (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58–0.78, P
ISSN:1547-5271
1556-3871
DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.03.042