IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0162756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Differences in Appropriate Shocks and Mortality among Patients with Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • David Conen
  • Barbora Arendacká
  • Christian Röver
  • Leonard Bergau
  • Pascal Munoz
  • Sofieke Wijers
  • Christian Sticherling
  • Markus Zabel
  • Tim Friede

Abstract

Background: Some but not all prior studies have shown that women receiving a primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have a lower risk of death and appropriate shocks than men. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of gender on the risk of appropriate shock, all-cause mortality and inappropriate shock in contemporary studies of patients receiving a primary prophylactic ICD. Data Source: PubMed, LIVIVO, Cochrane CENTRAL between 2010 and 2016. Study Selection: Studies providing at least 1 gender-specific risk estimate for the outcomes of interest. Data Extraction: Abstracts were screened independently for potentially eligible studies for inclusion. Thereby each abstract was reviewed by at least two authors. Data Synthesis: Out of 680 abstracts retained by our search strategy, 20 studies including 46’657 patients had gender-specific information on at least one of the relevant endpoints. Mean age across the individual studies varied between 58 and 69 years. The proportion of women enrolled ranged from 10% to 30%. Across 6 available studies, women had a significantly lower risk of first appropriate shock compared with men (pooled multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 0.62 (95% CI [0.44; 0.88]). Across 14 studies reporting multivariable adjusted gender-specific hazard ratio estimates for all-cause mortality, women had a lower risk of death than men (pooled hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI [0.66; 0.86]). There was no statistically significant difference for the incidence of first inappropriate shocks (3 studies, pooled hazard ratio 0.99 (95% CI [0.56; 1.73]). Limitations: Individual patient data were not available for most studies. Conclusion: In this large contemporary meta-analysis, women had a significantly lower risk of appropriate shocks and death than men, but a similar risk of inappropriate shocks. These data may help to select patients who benefit from primary prophylactic ICD implantation.

Suggested Citation

  • David Conen & Barbora Arendacká & Christian Röver & Leonard Bergau & Pascal Munoz & Sofieke Wijers & Christian Sticherling & Markus Zabel & Tim Friede, 2016. "Gender Differences in Appropriate Shocks and Mortality among Patients with Primary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162756
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162756
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162756
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0162756&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0162756?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0162756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.