Suppr超能文献

在一个大型全国队列中,植入起搏器、除颤器和心脏再同步治疗设备后女性与男性的生存率比较

Survival in Women Versus Men Following Implantation of Pacemakers, Defibrillators, and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices in a Large, Nationwide Cohort.

作者信息

Varma Niraj, Mittal Suneet, Prillinger Julie B, Snell Jeff, Dalal Nirav, Piccini Jonathan P

机构信息

Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

Valley Health System, Ridgewood, NJ.

出版信息

J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 May 10;6(5):e005031. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.005031.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Whether outcomes differ between sexes following treatment with pacemakers (PM), implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive US patients with newly implanted PM, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and CRT devices from a large remote monitoring database between 2008 and 2011 were included in this observational cohort study. Sex-specific all-cause survival postimplant was compared within each device type using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, stratified on age and adjusted for remote monitoring utilization and ZIP-based socioeconomic variables. A total of 269 471 patients were assessed over a median 2.9 [interquartile range, 2.2, 3.6] years. Unadjusted mortality rates (MR; deaths/100 000 patient-years) were similar between women versus men receiving PMs (n=115 076, 55% male; MR 4193 versus MR 4256, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; <0.001) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (n=85 014, 74% male; MR 4417 versus MR 4479, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.02; =0.244). In contrast, survival was superior in women receiving CRT defibrillators (n=61 475, 72% male; MR 5270 versus male MR 7175; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.70-0.76; <0.001) and also CRT pacemakers (n=7906, 57% male; MR 5383 versus male MR 7625, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.78; <0.001). This relative difference increased with time. These results were unaffected by age or remote monitoring utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Women accounted for less than 30% of high-voltage implants and fewer than half of low-voltage implants in a large, nation-wide cohort. Survival for women and men receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators and PMs was similar, but dramatically greater for women receiving both defibrillator- and PM-based CRT.

摘要

背景

起搏器(PM)、植入式心脏复律除颤器及心脏再同步治疗(CRT)设备治疗后,不同性别的治疗结果是否存在差异尚不清楚。

方法与结果

本观察性队列研究纳入了2008年至2011年间来自大型远程监测数据库的美国连续新发植入PM、植入式心脏复律除颤器及CRT设备的患者。使用多变量Cox比例风险模型,在年龄分层的基础上,针对每种设备类型比较植入后特定性别的全因生存率,并对远程监测利用率和基于邮政编码的社会经济变量进行调整。在中位2.9年[四分位间距,2.2,3.6]期间,共评估了269471例患者。接受PM的女性与男性的未调整死亡率(MR;死亡数/100000患者年)相似(n = 115076,55%为男性;MR分别为4193和4256;调整后风险比,0.87;95%CI,0.84 - 0.90;P < 0.001),接受植入式心脏复律除颤器的情况也相似(n = 85014,74%为男性;MR分别为4417和4479;调整后风险比,0.98;95%CI,0.93 - 1.02;P = 0.244)。相比之下,接受CRT除颤器的女性生存率更高(n = 61475,72%为男性;MR为5270,男性MR为7175;调整后风险比,0.73;95%CI,0.70 - 0.76;P < 0.001),接受CRT起搏器的女性也是如此(n = 7906,57%为男性;MR为5383,男性MR为7625,调整后风险比为0.69;95%CI,0.61 - 0.78;P < 0.001)。这种相对差异随时间增加。这些结果不受年龄或远程监测利用率的影响。

结论

在一个大型全国性队列中,接受高电压植入的女性占比不到30%,接受低电压植入的女性不到一半。接受植入式心脏复律除颤器和PM的女性与男性生存率相似,但接受基于除颤器和PM的CRT的女性生存率显著更高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a314/5524072/2afdf7e66945/JAH3-6-e005031-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验