Key result
Planned systematic review protocol evaluates sex differences in CRT implantation rates, efficacy, and complications.
Why the study?
Controversial data suggest women are less likely to receive cardiac resynchronization therapy devices despite greater benefit, alongside recognized sex differences in diagnosis, implantation, and outcomes.
Are there sex differences in the implantation rate, clinical effectiveness, and safety of patients receiving CRT devices?
Systematic Review
Are there sex differences in the implantation rate, clinical effectiveness, and safety of patients receiving CRT devices?
This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate sex differences in CRT implantation rates, efficacy, and complications.
Question of sex differences in CRT remains open; planned meta-analysis will synthesize implantation, efficacy, and safety data.
Introduction: There is abundant evidence for sex differences in the diagnosis, implantation and outcomes for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) devices. Controversial data suggesting women are less likely to receive the device regardless of the greater benefit. The aim of this review is to assess sex differences in the Implantation rate, clinical effectiveness and safety of patients receiving CRT devices. Methods: We will conduct a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science to identify cohort studies that meet our eligibility criteria. Title and full text screening will be conducted in duplicate independently. Eligible studies report clinical effectiveness or safety of patients receiving CRT device while providing sex-disaggregated data. Implantation rate will be extracted from the baseline characteristics tables of the studies. The effectiveness outcomes include: All cause death, Hospitalization, Peak oxygen consumption (pVO 2 ), Quality of life (QoL), 6 min walk test, NYHA class reduction, LVEF, Heart failure hospitalization. The complication outcomes include: Contrast-induced nephropathy, Pneumothorax, Pocket-related Hematoma, Pericardial tamponade, Phrenic nerve stimulation, Device Infection, Death, Pulmonary edema, Electrical storm, cardiogenic shock, Hypotension requiring resuscitation. Description of included studies will be reported in detail and outcomes will be meta-analyzed and presented using forest plots when feasible. Risk of Bias will be assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) by two review authors independently. GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence. Discussion: The aim of this review is to determine the presence of differences in CRT implantation between women and men as well as differences in clinical effectiveness, safety of CRT after device implantation. Results from this systematic review will provide important insights into sex differences in CRT devices that could contribute to the development of sex-specific recommendations and inform policy. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020204804
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dewidar et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Heart failure. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) vs. Sex (Men vs Women) was evaluated on Implantation rate, clinical effectiveness, and safety. Cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation rates, efficacy, and complications across sexes will be evaluated in this planned systematic review and meta-analysis, which currently reports no results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: