MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex Differences in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Outcomes: Findings From a Prospective Defibrillator Database

2012· article· en· W2053781987 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Derek R. MacFadden, Eugene Crystal, Andrew D. Krahn, Iqwal Mangat, Jeff S. Healey, Paul Dorian, David Birnie, Christopher S. Simpson, Yaariv Khaykin, Arnold Pintér, Kumaraswamy Nanthakumar, Andrew Calzavara, Peter C. Austin, Jack V. Tu, Douglas S. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorHazard ratioOdds ratioProspective cohort studyCardiac resynchronization therapyInternal medicineCardiologyConfidence intervalHeart failureEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sex differences in the use and outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have not been fully studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine potential sex differences in ICD implantation and device outcomes. DESIGN: Health payer-mandated, prospective study of patients referred for ICD implantation, with comprehensive, longitudinal follow-up for complications, deaths, and device outcomes. SETTING: 18 ICD implantation and follow-up centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: 6021 patients (4733 men) referred for ICD implantation from February 2007 to July 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Multivariate-adjusted ICD implantation rate, complications up to day 45, multivariate-adjusted complications, device outcomes (including appropriate shocks and therapies), and deaths occurring during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Rates of ICD implantation were similar in men and women (relative risk, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.02]; P = 0.60). However, women were significantly more likely to experience major complications by 45 days (odds ratio, 1.78 [CI, 1.24 to 2.58]; P = 0.002) and 1 year (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91 [CI, 1.48 to 2.47]; P < 0.001) after implantation. Occurrence of any major or minor complication was also increased in women at both 45-day follow-up (odds ratio, 1.50 [CI, 1.12 to 2.00]; P = 0.006) and 1-year follow-up (HR, 1.55 [CI, 1.25 to 1.93]; P < 0.001). After implantation, women were less likely than men to receive appropriate ICD shock (HR, 0.69 [CI, 0.51 to 0.93]; P = 0.015) or appropriate therapy via shock or antitachycardia pacing (HR, 0.73 [CI, 0.59 to 0.90]; P = 0.003). Total mortality among defibrillator recipients did not differ between men and women (HR, 1.00 [CI, 0.64 to 1.55]; P = 0.99). LIMITATION: The differential effects of sex on prereferral events were not examined. CONCLUSION: Although ICD implantation rates were similar after referral to an electrophysiologist, women who underwent ICD implantation had greater risks for complications and were less likely to experience appropriate ICD-delivered therapies than men. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations146
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207