Dataset Information

Sex Differences in the Risk of First and Recurrent Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias Among Patients Receiving an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator for Primary Prevention.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Current guidelines for primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy do not account for sex differences in arrhythmic risk in ICD candidates.

Objective

To evaluate the association between sex and risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) and mortality.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study compared differences in the risk of VTA and mortality between 4506 men and women enrolled in the 4 Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trials (MADIT) between July 1, 1997, and December 31, 2011. Data from prospective randomized controlled multicenter studies were analyzed retrospectively. Men and women with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator who were enrolled in all MADIT studies were included. Data were analyzed between January 10 and June 10, 2021.

Exposures

ICD implant.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was sustained VTA, defined as ICD-recorded, treated or monitored VTA at least 170/min or ventricular fibrillation. Secondary VTA end points included VTA at least 200/min, appropriate ICD shocks, and appropriate antitachycardia pacing. All end points were included in a first and recurrent event analysis.

Results

Of the 4506 study participants, 3431 were men (76%). Mean (SD) age of the cohort was 64 (12) years. For women vs men, the mean (SD) age (64 [12] years vs 64 [11] years) and left ventricular ejection fraction (24% vs 25%) were similar, but women exhibited a higher frequency of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (454 of 1075 women [42%] vs 2535 of 3431 men [74%]). Women had significantly lower 3-year cumulative probability of sustained VTA (16% vs 26%), fast VTA (9% vs 17%), and appropriate ICD shocks (7% vs 15%) compared with men (P < .001 for all). Multivariable analysis showed that female sex was independently associated with at least 40% lower risk of all first and recurrent VTA end points (P < .001 for all), including the primary end point (first event, HR = 60 [95% CI, 50-73], P < .001; recurrent event, HR = 49 [95% CI, 43-55], P < .001), after accounting for the competing risk of all-cause mortality and nonarrhythmic mortality. The lower VTA risk associated with female sex was consistent in risk subsets but was significantly more pronounced in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (female vs male in the ischemic group: hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95], P = .02; nonischemic group: hazard ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.38-0.66], P < .001; P = .03 for interaction between female sex and cardiomyopathy).

Conclusions and relevance

Findings suggest that women display a significantly lower risk of first and recurrent life-threatening VTA events than men, and that it is more pronounced in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, suggesting a need for sex-specific risk assessment for primary prevention ICD therapy.

SUBMITTER: Saxena S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9198764 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background One third of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients receive appropriate therapy, but all remain at risk of defibrillator complications. Information on these complications in contemporary cohorts is limited. This study assessed complications and their risk factors after defibrillator implantation in a Dutch nationwide prospective registry cohort and forecasts the potential reduction in complications under distinct scenarios of updated indication criteria. Methods and Results Complications in a prospective multicenter registry cohort of 1442 primary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant patients were classified as major or minor. The potential for reducing complications was derived from a newly developed prediction model of appropriate therapy to identify patients with a low probability of benefitting from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During a follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-2.6 years), 228 complications occurred in 195 patients (13.6%), with 113 patients (7.8%) experiencing at least one major complication. Most common ones were lead related (n=93) and infection (n=18). Minor complications occurred in 6.8% of patients, with lead-related (n=47) and pocket-related (n=40) complications as the most prevailing ones. A surgical reintervention or additional hospitalization was required in 53% or 61% of complications, respectively. Complications were strongly associated with device type. Application of stricter implant indication results in a comparable proportional reduction of (major) complications. Conclusions One in 13 patients experiences at least one major implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related complication, and many patients undergo a surgical reintervention. Complications are related to defibrillator implantations, and these should be discussed with the patient. Stricter implant indication criteria and careful selection of device type implanted may have significant clinical and financial benefits.

Project description:Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown.To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829).Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score-matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score-matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009.Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause.The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT-like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11).There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609.

Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk for mortality and heart failure-related events in select patients. Little is known about the use of CRT in combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for this therapy in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo (1) identify patient, clinician, and hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among guideline-eligible patients undergoing ICD placement.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter retrospective cohort from 1428 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Adult patients meeting class I or IIa guideline recommendations for CRT at the time of device implantation were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresImplantation of an ICD with or without CRT.ResultsA total of 63 506 eligible patients (88.6%) received CRT-D at the time of device implantation. The mean (SD) ages of those in the ICD and CRT-D groups were 67.9 (12.2) years and 68.4 (11.5) years, respectively. In hierarchical multivariable models, black race was independently associated with lower use of CRT-D (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) as was nonprivate insurance (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95 for Medicare and OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82 for Medicaid). Clinician factors associated with greater CRT-D use included clinician implantation volume (OR, 1.01 per 10 additional devices implanted; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01) and electrophysiology training (OR, 3.13 as compared with surgery-boarded clinicians; 95% CI, 2.50-3.85). At the hospital level, the overall median risk-standardized rate of CRT-D use was 79.9% (range, 26.7%-100%; median OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.99-2.18).Conclusions and relevanceIn a national cohort of patients eligible for CRT-D at the time of device implantation, nearly 90% received a CRT-D device. However, use of CRT-D differed by race and implanting operator characteristics. After accounting for these factors, the use of CRT-D continued to vary widely by hospital. Addressing disparities and variation in CRT-D use among guideline-eligible patients may improve patient outcomes.