Key result
ICDs show similar efficacy in women compared to men despite lower utilization.
Why the study?
Women receive far fewer ICDs than men despite similar clinical profiles, and data on ICD benefits in women are limited by low enrollment in landmark studies.
Disparities in ICD use by sex may reflect bias or biology; leaves open optimal patient selection pending higher-level data.
Women currently receive far fewer implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) than do men. Some studies suggest bias in device utilization, with fewer women receiving ICDs despite a similar clinical profile. Other studies, however, describe differences in clinical presentation and arrhythmia risk. There may be autonomic and electrophysiological factors that suggest a lower susceptibility to arrhythmia in women. Although the data on the benefits of the ICD in women are limited by the low numbers of women enrolled in the landmark studies, most studies do suggest an efficacy in women similar to that in men. Further research is needed on the use of ICDs in women.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rachel J. Lampert (2007) conducted a review in Arrhythmia risk and ICD indication. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) vs. Men was evaluated. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators appear to provide similar efficacy in women as in men, despite lower utilization rates and underrepresentation in landmark clinical trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: