Observational studyJournal of the American Heart Association2017
Survival in Women Versus Men Following Implantation of Pacemakers, Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices in a Large, Nationwide Cohort.
Observational study in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Heart rhythm · 2023Guideline
- Sex-specific short- and long-term outcomes in patients with leadless cardiac pacemakers.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Observational
- Exclusive research is bad science: the epidemiologic argument for diversity, equity, and inclusion in research.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Pacemaker therapy through a sex-specific lens: a narrative review of clinical and procedural disparities.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- JCS/JHRS 2024 Guideline Focused Update on Management of Cardiac Arrhythmias.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Analyzing Insights of Super-Response in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Fusion Pacing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Reduction in long-term mortality using remote device monitoring in a large real-world population of patients with implantable defibrillators.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Observational
- Article
- Sex-Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10-Year Statewide Patient Cohort.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Review
- Impact of corticosteroid use on the clinical response and prognosis in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis who underwent an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- Variation in regional implantation patterns of cardiac implantable electronic device in Switzerland.PloS one · 2022Article
- Trends in Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Insertion Between 1988 and 2018 in Olmsted County.JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2022Article
- Sex differences in Cardiac electronic device implantation: Outcomes from an Australian multi-centre clinical quality registry.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- Sex-Specific Patterns of Mortality Predictors Among Patients Undergoing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Machine Learning Approach.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Sex-Specific Outcomes in Cardiovascular Device Evaluations.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2020Review
- Sex Differences and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Pacemakers.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Article
- Evaluation of super-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy in the presence of left bundle branch block and absence of scar in the posterolateral wall of the left ventricle.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2020Article
- Sex-specific influence on cardiac structural remodeling and therapy in cardiovascular disease.Biology of sex differences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether outcomes differ between sexes following treatment with pacemakers (PM), implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is unclear. METHODS AND
resultsConsecutive US patients with newly implanted PM, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and CRT devices from a large remote monitoring database between 2008 and 2011 were included in this observational cohort study. Sex-specific all-cause survival postimplant was compared within each device type using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, stratified on age and adjusted for remote monitoring utilization and ZIP-based socioeconomic variables. A total of 269 471 patients were assessed over a median 2.9 [interquartile range, 2.2, 3.6] years. Unadjusted mortality rates (MR; deaths/100 000 patient-years) were similar between women versus men receiving PMs (n=115 076, 55% male; MR 4193 versus MR 4256, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90;
conclusionsWomen accounted for less than 30% of high-voltage implants and fewer than half of low-voltage implants in a large, nation-wide cohort. Survival for women and men receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators and PMs was similar, but dramatically greater for women receiving both defibrillator- and PM-based CRT.
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.