ArticleCirculation. Heart failure2016
Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.
Article in Circulation. Heart failure, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Underrepresentation of women in implantable cardioverter defibrillator trials.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
- Sex-Specific Outcomes in Cardiovascular Device Evaluations.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Older Heart Failure Patients With Diabetes Mellitus.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Observational
- Gender differences in the use of primary prevention ICDs in New Zealand patients with heart failure.Heart Asia · 2018Article
- Sex-specific precision medicine: targeting CRT-D and other cardiovascular interventions to those most likely to benefit.European heart journal · 2017Article
- Increasing sex differences in the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.European heart journal · 2017Article
- Survival in Women Versus Men Following Implantation of Pacemakers, Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices in a Large, Nationwide Cohort.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Observational
- Response to Letter Regarding Article, "Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women".Circulation. Heart failure · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. METHODS AND
resultsWe linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P<0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P=0.79).
conclusionsAmong patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.