Sex Differences in Implantation and Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Real-World Settings: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundEvidence from randomized trials is conflicting on the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by sex, and differences in access are unknown. We examined sex differences in the implantation rates and outcomes in patients treated with CRT using cohort studies.MethodsWe followed a pre-specified protocol (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42020204804). MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for cohort studies from January 2000 to June 2020 that evaluated the response to CRT in patients ≥ 18 years old and reported sex-specific information in any language.ResultsWe included 97 studies (1,172,654 men and 486,553 women). Men received CRT more frequently than women (median ratio, 3.16; 25th to 75th interquartile range, 2.48-3.62). In the unadjusted analysis, men had a greater long-term all-cause mortality rate after CRT, compared with women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.63; P < 0.001). Adjustment for confounders did not affect the strength or direction of association (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.32-1.59; P < 0.001). Women achieved a greater rate of improvement in left ejection fraction compared with men (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 4.23-5.13; P < 0.001). Men had a lower risk of a pneumothorax (relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34; P < 0.001]); otherwise, there were no differences in complications.ConclusionsWe found in this large meta-analysis that men were more often implanted with CRT than women, yet men had a higher long-term all-cause mortality following CRT, compared with women, and smaller improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction. Reasons for this difference in implantation rates of CRT in real-world practice need to be investigated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it