Cecilia Linde1, Marcus Ståhlberg2, Lina Benson3, Frieder Braunschweig2, Magnus Edner2, Ulf Dahlström4, Urban Alehagen4, Lars H Lund2. 1. Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 17177, Sweden Department of Cardiology, N205, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm 17176, Sweden cecilia.linde@ki.se. 2. Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 17177, Sweden Department of Cardiology, N205, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm 17176, Sweden. 3. Department of Clinical Science and Education, South Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 118 83, Sweden. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Cardiology UHL, Linköping University, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping 58191, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: It has been suggested that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is less utilized, dyssynchrony occurs at narrower QRS, and CRT is more beneficial in women compared with men. We tested the hypotheses that (i) CRT is more underutilized and (ii) QRS prolongation and left bundle branch block (LBBB) are more harmful in women. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 14 713 patients (28% women) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. In women vs. men, CRT was present in 4 vs. 7% (P < 0.001) and was absent but with indication in 30 vs. 31% (P = 0.826). Next, among 13 782 patients (28% women) without CRT, 9% of women and 17% of men had non-specific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD) and 27% of women and 24% of men had LBBB. One-year survival with narrow QRS was 85% in women and 88% in men, with IVCD 74 and 78%, and with LBBB 84 and 82%, respectively. Compared with narrow QRS, IVCD had a multivariable hazard ratio of 1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46, P = 0.011) in women and 1.30 (95% CI 1.19-1.42, P < 0.001) in men, and LBBB 1.03 (95% CI 0.91-1.16, P = 0.651) in women and 1.16 (95% CI 1.07-1.26, P < 0.001) in men, P for interaction between gender and QRS morphology, 0.241. CONCLUSIONS: While the proportion with CRT was lower in women, CRT was equally underutilized in both genders. QRS prolongation with or without LBBB was not more harmful in women than in men. Efforts to improve CRT implementation should be directed equally towards women and men. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: It has been suggested that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is less utilized, dyssynchrony occurs at narrower QRS, and CRT is more beneficial in women compared with men. We tested the hypotheses that (i) CRT is more underutilized and (ii) QRS prolongation and left bundle branch block (LBBB) are more harmful in women. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 14 713 patients (28% women) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. In women vs. men, CRT was present in 4 vs. 7% (P < 0.001) and was absent but with indication in 30 vs. 31% (P = 0.826). Next, among 13 782 patients (28% women) without CRT, 9% of women and 17% of men had non-specific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD) and 27% of women and 24% of men had LBBB. One-year survival with narrow QRS was 85% in women and 88% in men, with IVCD 74 and 78%, and with LBBB 84 and 82%, respectively. Compared with narrow QRS, IVCD had a multivariable hazard ratio of 1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46, P = 0.011) in women and 1.30 (95% CI 1.19-1.42, P < 0.001) in men, and LBBB 1.03 (95% CI 0.91-1.16, P = 0.651) in women and 1.16 (95% CI 1.07-1.26, P < 0.001) in men, P for interaction between gender and QRS morphology, 0.241. CONCLUSIONS: While the proportion with CRT was lower in women, CRT was equally underutilized in both genders. QRS prolongation with or without LBBB was not more harmful in women than in men. Efforts to improve CRT implementation should be directed equally towards women and men. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Janice Y Chyou; Wan Ting Tay; Inder S Anand; Tiew-Hwa Katherine Teng; Jonathan J L Yap; Michael R MacDonald; Vijay Chopra; Seet Yoong Loh; Wataru Shimizu; Imran Zainal Abidin; Arthur Mark Richards; Javed Butler; Carolyn S P Lam Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Tiffany C Randolph; Samuel Broderick; Linda K Shaw; Karen Chiswell; Robert J Mentz; Valentina Kutyifa; Eric J Velazquez; Francis R Gilliam; Kevin L Thomas Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Márton Tokodi; Anett Behon; Eperke Dóra Merkel; Attila Kovács; Zoltán Tősér; András Sárkány; Máté Csákvári; Bálint Károly Lakatos; Walter Richard Schwertner; Annamária Kosztin; Béla Merkely Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-02-25
Authors: Lena Björck; Carmen Basic; Christina E Lundberg; Tatiana Zverkova Sandström; Maria Schaufelberger; Annika Rosengren Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-11-16
Authors: Lucy Bolt; Maria M Wertli; Alan G Haynes; Nicolas Rodondi; Arnaud Chiolero; Radoslaw Panczak; Drahomir Aujesky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John G F Cleland; Michael R Bristow; Nicholas Freemantle; Brian Olshansky; Daniel Gras; Leslie Saxon; Luigi Tavazzi; John Boehmer; Stefano Ghio; Arthur M Feldman; Jean-Claude Daubert; David de Mets Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2022-05-22 Impact factor: 17.349