Observational studyJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2019
Sex difference in inappropriate therapy and survival among 1471 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.
Observational study in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Sex and Clinical Factors Associated with Long-Term Survival After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation: A 10-Year Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sex-specific differences in outcome and risk stratification of ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Elevated plasma levels of asymmetric dimethylarginine and the risk for arrhythmic death in ischemic and non-ischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy - A prospective, controlled long-term study.Clinical biochemistry · 2020Observational
- Sex difference in inappropriate therapy and survival among 1471 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo assess a potential relationship between sex and outcome in recipients of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND
resultsAll 1471 ICD recipients between 2000 and 2015 were sex-related analyzed with the following outcome parameters: overall survival (OS), the occurrence of inappropriate and appropriate antitachycardia pacing (ATP), and shock therapy. We followed 1206 (82%) male and 265 (18%) female ICD recipients during 4.1 ± 3.6 and 4.3 ± 3.8 years, respectively, (P = .369). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that there was no significant difference in OS between female and male patients (P = .132). After adjustment for relevant confounding factors in a multivariate model, sex remained a nonsignificant predictor of overall mortality (hazard ratio [male] = 1.11; P = .493). Negative binomial regression analysis revealed that women received less appropriate ATP therapy (rate ratio [RR] = 0.37; P = .043), whereas rates of appropriate shock therapy (RR = 1.95; P = .369) did not differ between women and men. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of inappropriate ATP (RR = 1.22; P = .715) and inappropriate shock therapy (RR = 0.64; P = .121).
conclusionFemale and male patients equally benefit from ICD therapy in terms of OS. Women are less likely to receive appropriate ATP therapy, whereas appropriate shock and inappropriate ATP and shock therapy are independent of sex.
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.