Timmy Pham1, Richard Bennett1, Juliana Kanawati1, Timothy Campbell1, Samual Turnbull1, Stuart P Thomas1, Saurabh Kumar2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead Applied Research Centre, University of Sydney, Darcy Road, Westmead, NSW, Australia. 2. Department of Cardiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead Applied Research Centre, University of Sydney, Darcy Road, Westmead, NSW, Australia. saurabh.kumar@health.nsw.gov.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women are under-represented in many key studies and trials examining outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) for ventricular arrhythmias (VA). We compared characteristics between men and women undergoing their first catheter ablation for VA at a single centre over 10 years. METHODS: The clinical, procedural characteristics and outcomes of 287 consecutive patients (male = 182, female = 105), undergoing their first CA at our centre over 10 years were compared according to sex and underlying heart disease. RESULTS: In the ablation population, women were younger, had fewer co-morbidities, were less likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and VA storm and were more likely to have idiopathic VA and premature ventricular complexes as the indication for ablation (P < 0.05 for all). Amongst idiopathic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) subgroups, baseline characteristics were similar; amongst ICM, women were younger and had higher numbers of drug failure pre-ablation (P = 0.05). Women were similar to men in all procedural characteristics, acute procedural success and complications, regardless of underlying heart disease. At median follow-up of 666 days, VA-free survival, overall mortality and survival free of death or transplant were comparable in both groups. Sex was not a predictor of these outcomes, after accounting for clinical and procedural characteristics. CONCLUSION: Women represented 36% of the real-world population at our centre referred for CA of VA. There are key differences in clinical features of women versus men referred for VA ablation. Despite these differences, VA ablation in women can be accomplished with similar success and complication rates to men, regardless of underlying heart disease.
BACKGROUND: Women are under-represented in many key studies and trials examining outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) for ventricular arrhythmias (VA). We compared characteristics between men and women undergoing their first catheter ablation for VA at a single centre over 10 years. METHODS: The clinical, procedural characteristics and outcomes of 287 consecutive patients (male = 182, female = 105), undergoing their first CA at our centre over 10 years were compared according to sex and underlying heart disease. RESULTS: In the ablation population, women were younger, had fewer co-morbidities, were less likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and VA storm and were more likely to have idiopathic VA and premature ventricular complexes as the indication for ablation (P < 0.05 for all). Amongst idiopathic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) subgroups, baseline characteristics were similar; amongst ICM, women were younger and had higher numbers of drug failure pre-ablation (P = 0.05). Women were similar to men in all procedural characteristics, acute procedural success and complications, regardless of underlying heart disease. At median follow-up of 666 days, VA-free survival, overall mortality and survival free of death or transplant were comparable in both groups. Sex was not a predictor of these outcomes, after accounting for clinical and procedural characteristics. CONCLUSION: Women represented 36% of the real-world population at our centre referred for CA of VA. There are key differences in clinical features of women versus men referred for VA ablation. Despite these differences, VA ablation in women can be accomplished with similar success and complication rates to men, regardless of underlying heart disease.
Authors: David S Frankel; Roderick Tung; Pasquale Santangeli; Wendy S Tzou; Marmar Vaseghi; Luigi Di Biase; Koichi Nagashima; Usha Tedrow; T Jared Bunch; Venkatakrishna N Tholakanahalli; Raghuveer Dendi; Madhu Reddy; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Timm Dickfeld; J Peter Weiss; Nilesh Mathuria; Pasquale Vergara; Mehul Patel; Shiro Nakahara; Kairav Vakil; William H Sauer; David J Callans; Andrea Natale; William G Stevenson; Paolo Della Bella; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Francis E Marchlinski Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Samuel H Baldinger; Saurabh Kumar; Jorge Romero; Akira Fujii; Laurence M Epstein; Gregory F Michaud; Roy John; Usha B Tedrow; William G Stevenson Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2017-01-13
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Matthew R Reynolds; Petr Neuzil; Allison W Richardson; Milos Taborsky; Krit Jongnarangsin; Stepan Kralovec; Lucie Sediva; Jeremy N Ruskin; Mark E Josephson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-12-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey S Berger; Laine Elliott; Dianne Gallup; Matthew Roe; Christopher B Granger; Paul W Armstrong; R John Simes; Harvey D White; Frans Van de Werf; Eric J Topol; Judith S Hochman; L Kristin Newby; Robert A Harrington; Robert M Califf; Richard C Becker; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John L Sapp; George A Wells; Ratika Parkash; William G Stevenson; Louis Blier; Jean-Francois Sarrazin; Bernard Thibault; Lena Rivard; Lorne Gula; Peter Leong-Sit; Vidal Essebag; Pablo B Nery; Stanley K Tung; Jean-Marc Raymond; Laurence D Sterns; George D Veenhuyzen; Jeff S Healey; Damian Redfearn; Jean-Francois Roux; Anthony S L Tang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 91.245