Paper detail

Gender differences in appropriate shocks and mortality among patients with primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Systematic review and meta-analysis

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]). 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.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.