ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Sex Differences in the Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Prognosis of Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias in Sepsis Patients.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ciprofol versus propofol for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled trial.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Trial
- Sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy: mechanisms, epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatments.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Mitochondria at the Heart of Sepsis: Mechanisms, Metabolism, and Sex Differences.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- L-shaped association between triglyceride-glucose body mass index and short-term mortality in ICU patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring on mortality in sepsis patients across different age groups: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Women are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials and databases focusing on ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). However, understanding sex-based differences in risk factors and the prognosis of VAs is essential for tailoring personalized prevention and treatment strategies. This study aimed to investigate sex differences in the epidemiology, risk factors, and prognosis of VAs in patients with sepsis. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive analysis of 27,139 sepsis patients (mean [SD] age, 66.6 [16.2] years; 15,626 [57.6%] male), among whom 1136 (4.2%) developed VAs during their hospitalization. We evaluated VAs incidence and potential risk elements in both male and female patients, along with in-hospital mortality. Results: Men had a significantly higher likelihood of developing VAs compared to women (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-1.94, Conclusions: In sepsis patients, the emergence of VAs independently escalates the risk of in-hospital mortality, with a notable correlation between male sex and an increased VAs risk. The impacts of CHF, NICM and pneumonia on incident VAs were significantly influenced by 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.