2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death.

Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green (HRS representative), Anne B. Curtis (EHRA appointed, United States representative), Isabel Deisenhofer (Germany), Tetsushi Furokawa (APHRS representative, Japan), Anne M. Gillis (HRS representative, Canada), Kristina H. Haugaa (Norway), Gregory Y.H. Lip (UK), Isabelle Van Gelder (The Netherlands), Marek Malik (UK), Jeannie Poole (HRS representative, USA), Tatjana Potpara (Serbia), Irina Savelieva (UK), and Andrea Sarkozy (Co-Chair, Belgium)

Sex differences in cardiac arrhythmia: a consensus document of the European Heart Rhythm Association, endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society.

This in-depth review of sex differences in advanced heart failure therapy summarizes the existing literature on implantable cardioverter defibrillators, biventricular pacemakers, mechanical circulatory support, and transplantation with a focus on utilization, efficacy/clinical effectiveness, adverse events, and controversies. One will learn about the controversies regarding efficacy/clinical effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and understand why these devices should be implanted in women even if there are sex differences in appropriate shocks. Individuals will learn about the sex differences with biventricular pacemakers with respect to ventricular remodeling and reduction in heart failure hospitalizations/mortality, as well as, possible mechanisms. We will demonstrate sex differences in heart transplantation and waitlist survival. Despite similar survival for women and men with left ventricular assist devices, there are sex differences in adverse events. These devices do successfully bridge women and men to transplant, yet women are less likely than men to have a left ventricular assist at time of listing and time of transplantation. Finally, one will learn about the concerns regarding poor outcome for men who receive female donor hearts and discover this may not be due to sex, but rather size. More research is needed to better understand sex differences and further improve advanced heart failure therapy for both women and men.

Sex Differences in Advanced Heart Failure Therapies.

AIMS The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537-0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569-0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902). CONCLUSION In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

/pdf/clinical-effectiveness-of-primary-prevention-implantable-33y7gr8rbe.pdf

Clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results of the EU-CERT-ICD controlled multicentre cohort study.

Background: Most randomized trials on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled patien...

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043012?download=true

Association Between Use of Primary-Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure: A Prospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis From the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

Aims Therapy with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is established for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high risk patients. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy by analysing registry data from 14 centres in 11 European countries compiled between 2002 and 2014, with emphasis on outcomes in women who have been underrepresented in all trials. Methods and results Retrospective data of 14 local registries of primary prevention ICD implantations between 2002 and 2014 were compiled in a central database. Predefined primary outcome measures were overall mortality and first appropriate and first inappropriate shocks. A multivariable model enforcing a common hazard ratio for sex category across the centres, but allowing for centre-specific baseline hazards and centre specific effects of other covariates, was adjusted for age, the presence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy or a CRT-D, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤25%. Of the 5033 patients, 957 (19%) were women. During a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 16-55 months) 129 women (13%) and 807 men (20%) died (HR 0.65; 95% CI: [0.53, 0.79], P-value < 0.0001). An appropriate ICD shock occurred in 66 women (8%) and 514 men (14%; HR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47-0.79; P = 0.0002). Conclusion Our retrospective analysis of 14 local registries in 11 European countries demonstrates that fewer women than men undergo ICD implantation for primary prevention. After multivariate adjustment, women have a significantly lower mortality and receive fewer appropriate ICD shocks.

/pdf/sex-differences-in-outcomes-of-primary-prevention-1qo8a8u8ku.pdf

Sex differences in outcomes of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: combined registry data from eleven European countries

Emilia Kowalczyk

Papers

Sex differences in outcomes of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: combined registry data from eleven European countries