BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are a life-saving therapy for many patients with cardiovascular disease at increased risk of fatal dysrhythmias. As men comprise the majority of the study population (67-92%) in clinical trials, the benefit to women is unknown. We performed a meta-analysis of primary prevention trials to evaluate the impact of ICDs in men and women on death from any cause. METHODS: Included trials met the following criteria: (i) randomized controlled trials versus standard of care, (ii) ICD used as primary prevention in a well-described protocol and (iii) data provided on risk of death from any cause for both male and female patients. RESULTS: Five clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of death from any cause was significantly reduced by 26% in male patients who received ICD therapy compared to control, hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91) but not amongst female patients, HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.60-1.09). As the COMPANION trial evaluated the combination of biventricular pacemaker with ICD therapy we conducted a separate analysis without the inclusion of this study. Male patients receiving ICD therapy demonstrated a similar 24% reduction in risk of death from any cause, HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.58-0.99) whilst female patients demonstrated a reduction of only 12%, HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.22). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike their male counterparts, females did not significantly benefit from ICD therapy and without concurrent biventricular pacing, appear only to achieve a nonsignificant 12% reduction in risk of death.
BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are a life-saving therapy for many patients with cardiovascular disease at increased risk of fatal dysrhythmias. As men comprise the majority of the study population (67-92%) in clinical trials, the benefit to women is unknown. We performed a meta-analysis of primary prevention trials to evaluate the impact of ICDs in men and women on death from any cause. METHODS: Included trials met the following criteria: (i) randomized controlled trials versus standard of care, (ii) ICD used as primary prevention in a well-described protocol and (iii) data provided on risk of death from any cause for both male and female patients. RESULTS: Five clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of death from any cause was significantly reduced by 26% in male patients who received ICD therapy compared to control, hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91) but not amongst female patients, HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.60-1.09). As the COMPANION trial evaluated the combination of biventricular pacemaker with ICD therapy we conducted a separate analysis without the inclusion of this study. Male patients receiving ICD therapy demonstrated a similar 24% reduction in risk of death from any cause, HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.58-0.99) whilst female patients demonstrated a reduction of only 12%, HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.63-1.22). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike their male counterparts, females did not significantly benefit from ICD therapy and without concurrent biventricular pacing, appear only to achieve a nonsignificant 12% reduction in risk of death.
Authors: Emily P Zeitler; Anne S Hellkamp; Phillip J Schulte; Gregg C Fonarow; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Gillian D Sanders; Clyde W Yancy; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Larisa G Tereshchenko; Lichy Han; Alan Cheng; Joseph E Marine; David D Spragg; Sunil Sinha; Darshan Dalal; Hugh Calkins; Gordon F Tomaselli; Ronald D Berger Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Emily P Zeitler; Anne S Hellkamp; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen C Hammill; Lesley H Curtis; Adrian F Hernandez; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Jeptha P Curtis; Paul A Heidenreich; Kevin J Anstrom; Eric D Peterson; Daniel B Mark; Bradley G Hammill; Gillian D Sanders; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 12.035