Why the study?
Are there sex differences in the utilisation and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy?
Are there sex differences in the utilisation and clinical outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy?
This review highlights the significant under-representation of women in cardiac device trials and the under-utilisation of life-saving ICD and CRT therapies in eligible female patients.
May warrant clinician review of referral patterns for eligible women; leaves open strategies to boost female enrollment in device trials.
Multiple studies have demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) provide significant mortality and morbidity benefits to eligible patients irrespective of gender. However, female patients are less likely to receive this life-saving therapy and are significantly under-represented in cardiac device trials. Various performance improvement programmes have proved that this gender disparity can be reduced and these therapies should be offered to all eligible patients regardless of sex. Efforts should be made to enrol more women in clinical trials and sex-specific analysis in medical device clinical studies should be encouraged. In this article we review the data on sex differences in clinical outcomes with ICDs and CRT and explore the reasons for this sex-based disparity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Narasimha et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: