ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended heart rate control among a large sample of patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- OPTimizing Beta-Blocker Dosage in Women Using the Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (OPT-BB Women): Study design.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Variabiliy in Prescribing Patterns of Wearable Cardiac Defibrillators: Current Data, Guidelines, Challenges, and Controversies.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite known clinical benefits, guideline-recommended heart rate (HR) control is not achieved for a significant proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) provides continuous HR monitoring and alerts that could aid medication titration. Objective: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended HR control during a period of WCD use. Methods: Data from patients fitted with a WCD from 2015 to 2018 were obtained from the manufacturer's database (ZOLL). The proportion of patients with adequate nighttime resting HR control at the beginning of use (BOU) and at the end of use (EOU) were compared by sex. Adequate HR control was defined as having a nighttime median HR <70 beats/min. Results: A total of 21,440 women and a comparative sample of 17,328 men (median 90 [IQR 59-116] days of WCD wear) were included in the final dataset. Among patients who did not receive a shock, over half had insufficient HR control at BOU (59% of women, 53% of men). Although the proportion of patients with resting HR ≥70 beats/min improved by EOU, 43% of women and 36% of men did not achieve guideline-recommended HR control. Conclusion: A significant proportion of women and men did not achieve adequate HR control during a period of medical therapy optimization. Compared with men, a greater proportion of women receiving WCD shocks had insufficiently controlled HR in the week preceding ventricular tachyarrhythmia/ventricular fibrillation and 43% of nonshocked women, compared with 36% of men, did not reach adequate HR control during the study period. The WCD can be utilized as a remote monitoring tool to record HR and inform adequate uptitration of beta-blockers, with particular focus on reducing the treatment gap in women.
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.