Outcomes in Women Undergoing Electrophysiological Procedures

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

The number of invasive electrophysiological procedures is steadily increasing in Western countries, as the age of the population increases and technologies advance. In recent years, gender-related differences in cardiac rhythm disorders have been increasingly appreciated, which can potentially have a great impact on the outcomes of invasive electrophysiological procedures. Among supraventricular arrhythmias, women have a higher incidence of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia and a significantly lower incidence of atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia compared with males, and present to ablation procedures later and after having failed more antiarrhythmic drugs. The results of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in women have been reported worse than in men. This finding is possibly due to a later referral of females to ablation procedures, who present older and with a higher incidence of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. With regard to cardiac device implantation procedures, a smaller survival benefit from prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation has been shown in women, essentially due to gender-specific differences in the clinical course of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, with women dying predominantly from non-arrhythmic causes. On the other side, the clinical outcome of cardiac resynchronisation therapy seems to be more favourable in women, who experience a greater degree of reverse left ventricular remodelling and a striking decrease of heart failure events or mortality after biventricular pacing. This review will summarise the available evidence on gender-related differences in outcomes of invasive electrophysiological procedures.

Disclosure
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Pasquale Santangeli, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, H2159, Stanford, CA 94305, US. E: pasquale.santangeli@gmail.com
Received date
20 August 2012
Accepted date
11 January 2013
Citation
Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review 2013;2(1):41-4
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.15420/aer.2013.2.1.41

The number of invasive electrophysiological procedures is steadily increasing in Western countries, as techniques advance and the age of the population increases. Gender exerts a profound influence on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical presentation of many cardiac rhythm disorders, and all these factors may affect the outcome of invasive electrophysiological procedures. Disturbingly, most of the current evidence-based electrophysiology practices have been derived from studies enrolling predominantly males, and whether the reported outcomes can be safely extrapolated also to females is unclear. This article will summarise the current evidence on gender-related differences that are relevant to outcomes of invasive electrophysiological procedures.

Gender Differences in Outcomes of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation

Catheter Ablation of Supraventricular Tachycardia

Gender-related differences in epidemiology of supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) have been reported by several investigators, includinga twofold greater risk of atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia in females, 1,2 a double incidence of atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia in males, 3,4 and a higher incidence of focal automatic atrial tachycardias in pre-menopausal females. 5 In the initial assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of SVT, epidemiological differences between genders might aid the clinical evaluation.

Gender-specific characteristics should also be taken into account when referring patients to diagnostic electrophysiological tests. In females, inducibility of SVTs can change during different phases of the menstrual cycle; 6–9 a dual atrioventricular node physiology can be elicited more frequently during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, 6–9 and the increased cardiac sympathetic tone of the ovulatory and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle may facilitate the induction of automatic SVTs. 1 Male gender, on the other side, is a known risk factor for sudden cardiac death in the presence of atrioventricular accessory pathways. 3,10

Radiofrequency catheter ablation has been shown to be equally safe and effective in both genders, although females are typically under-referred to catheter ablation of SVTs. 5,11–14 In a large cohort of 894 patients undergoing catheter ablation of re-entrant SVTs, Dagres et al. reported no gender differences in safety and efficacy of catheter ablation, although females presented to catheter ablation later than males (185 ± 143 versus 157 ± 144 months after onset of symptoms, p<0.001), and after being treated with more antiarrhythmic drugs (1.6 ± 1.2 versus 1.3 ± 1.1, p<0.001). Notably, females were also more symptomatic and with a higher number of SVT episodes per month (p<0.001). 14 The reasons for the under-referral of women to a treatment that is highly safe and effective (such as catheter ablation of SVTs) are unclear, although a sex-related bias in patient referral may play a role.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

From an epidemiological perspective, the absolute number of women with atrial fibrillation (AF) largely outweighs the number of men, essentially due to a greater longevity of females. 15 Symptoms of AF are more frequent in women, 16 who also experience a worse prognosis with a higher risk of death 17,18 and cardioembolic strokes. 18,19 Surprisingly, women are referred less, and later than men, to catheter ablation of AF. In a multicentre study including 221 patients undergoing pulmonary vein antrum isolation, women constituted less than one-third of patients. Overall, females presented to catheter ablation later than males (median 60 versus 47 months after onset of AF, p=0.04), with evidence of more advanced left atrial remodelling (left atrial diameter of 44.0 ± 6.5 versus 40.6 ± 6.3 mm, p=0.003), and with more co-morbidities. 20 These data suggest the lack of attention towards early clinical signs and treatment in women when compared with men. A possible explanation is that symptoms are more likely to be attributed to stress or anxiety in women than men. In addition, the older age and the higher degree of atrial structural and electrical remodelling disease may in part explain a lower women referral for AF ablation procedures and the gender difference in success rates related to further adverse atrial remodelling in women. In a large series of 3,265 patients undergoing pulmonary vein antrum isolation, Patel et al. found an overall lower referral rate for women, 21 who also presented to ablation procedure older and with more co-morbidities than men. In particular, females had a higher prevalence of long-standing persistent AF (27 versus 20 %, p<0.001), and of non-pulmonary vein sites of firing (50.4 versus 16.3 %, p<0.001), and a lower long-term success rate than males (68.5 versus 77.5 %, p<0.001) (see Figure 1 ). 21

Figure 1: Gender Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Catheter Ablation Outcome in Patients Undergoing Pulmonary Vein Antrum Isolation at St David’s Medical Center, Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute

Open in new tab

While these findings may be the mere result of a later referral of women to catheter ablation, gender-specific differences in AF pathophysiology may also play a role. In a study on 293 consecutive patients with paroxysmal AF referred for catheter ablation, Lee et al. showed that female gender was an independent predictor of non-pulmonary vein ectopic beats at multivariable analysis. 22 The authors speculated that female hormones might play a role in the higher incidence of superior vena cava ectopic beats in women and that the higher parasympathetic autonomic tone of women 23,24 might account for the higher incidence of superior vena cava site of ectopic beats initiating AF, due to the proximity of autonomic nerves and ganglionated plexi to the superior vena cava. 22 With regard to procedure-related complications, females might experience increased rates of adverse events.

In the large study by Patel et al., women had a higher incidence of haematomas (2.1 versus 0.9 %, p=0.026) and pseudoaneurysms (0.6 versus 0.1 %, p=0.031) than men. 21 Anatomical gender differences due to smaller heart chamber size and pulmonary vein antra in women might affect the ease of performance of ablation procedures, and thus success and complication rate. 14

In conclusion, the overall outcome of catheter ablation in females appears worse than in males, which is likely affected by later referral of females to ablation procedures.

Catheter Ablation of Other Arrhythmias

No significant differences in outcomes of catheter ablation procedures between genders have been reported for atrial flutter. 25 The same is true for catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias, although females were largely underrepresented in studies evaluating the role of ablation in the management of ventricular arrhythmias. 26–28

Implantation of Cardiac Devices

Permanent Pacemakers

Females have a lower incidence of atrioventricular block and a higher incidence of sinus node dysfunction. 29,30 As a consequence, this should result in a more frequent choice of dual-chamber pacemakers in females, due to the demonstrated harmful effect of ventricular pacing on the outcome of sinus node dysfunction. 31,32

Surprisingly, in the ‘real-world’, females receive single-chamber devices more frequently. In an analysis on 36,312 elderly Medicare beneficiaries undergoing pacemaker implantation, Lamas et al. showed that male gender was an independent predictor of a dual-chamber pacemaker implantation, 33 thus supporting a sex-bias in pacemaker implantation procedures. 34,35

With regard to complications, females experience more adverse events from pacemaker implantation. 35 Nowak et al. recently reported that women had increased rates of procedure-related complications than men, with higher incidence of pneumothorax (odds ratio (OR) 2.12, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.39–3.24), especially when analysing the subclavian vein access group (OR 4.02, 95 % CI 1.91–8.45), and a higher incidence of pocket haematoma (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.05–2.11). 35

In addition to women’s older age and co-morbidities, smaller body size of females and a more challenging implantation procedure due to thinner right ventricular wall, smaller blood vessel diameter and a higher prevalence of anatomical variations in venoarterial relationships may explain such findings. 21,35–38 On the other side, female gender seems associated with a better outcome after pacemaker placement, with males experiencing poorer survival following pacemaker implantation. 30,39

In conclusion, despite presenting to pacemaker implantation older, more symptomatic, with more co-morbidities, and experiencing more procedure-related complications, females seem to obtain a greater benefit from pacemaker implantation than males, with a lower long-term mortality.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Whether females with severe left ventricular dysfunction earn the same survival benefit as males when treated with prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is still unclear. 40 All studies on this topic have shown inconsistent and conflicting results. 41–44 Subgroup analyses of the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) 43 and of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT-II), 44 reported no significant gender-related difference on the benefit of ICD therapy on mortality. On the other hand, Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT) investigators found a significantly lower survival benefit of prophylactic ICD therapy among women. 42 A recent meta-analysis of primary prevention ICD studies (MADIT-II, MUSTT, SCD-HeFT, DEFibrillators in Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy Treatment Evaluation [DEFINITE] and Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure [COMPANION]) focused on the endpoints of total mortality, appropriate ICD therapies, defined as interventions on sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), and net ICD survival benefit in women compared with men. 45 The pooled analysis included a total of 7,229 patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (74 % with ischaemic cardiomyopathy). Women constituted 23 % of the total patient population, and suffered from more advanced forms of congestive heart failure and more co-morbidities. Moreover, females received significantly less renin-angiotensin system blockers and coronary revascularisation procedures compared with their male counterparts. Quantitative data synthesis, adjusted for all possible baseline confounders and covariates, showed no significant difference in overall mortality in women compared with men (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95 % CI 0.67–1.39, P=0.84), and significantly fewer appropriate ICD therapies in women (HR 0.63, 95 % CI 0.49–0.82, P<0.001). These data strongly suggest significant gender differences in arrhythmic risk associated with severe left ventricular dysfunction, supporting the concept that sudden cardiac death has a smaller impact on total mortality in women with such disease condition. 45

Figure 2: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Survival Benefit in Males

Open in new tab

The presence of gender differences in sudden cardiac death substrates and mechanisms has been reported in several studies. Women are less prone to ventricular arrhythmias except long QT-induced torsade de pointes and drug-induced ventricular arrhythmia, and the incidence of sudden cardiac death is generally lower in women than in men. 46,47 An analysis of the Framingham population revealed that women had a significantly lower incidence of sudden cardiac death in all age groups, with almost two-thirds occurring in subjects without previous diagnoses of coronary artery disease. 47 The lower rate of coronary artery disease in women may contribute to the lower incidence of sudden cardiac death; 48,49 however, differences in susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmia may also play a role. Among patients with coronary artery disease, VT or VF is less inducible in women despite similar ejection fractions, number of diseased coronary arteries and history of myocardial infarction. 50

Figure 3: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Survival Benefit in Females

Open in new tab

With regard to outcome after prophylactic ICD implantation, ICD reduced mortality in men significantly (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.58–0.78, p<0.001) (see Figure 2 ), whereas in women the mortality reduction did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.57–1.05, p=0.1) (see Figure 3 ). 45 In conclusion, available evidence suggests that the presence of severe left ventricular dysfunction may not reliably identify females at risk of sudden cardiac death, and prophylactic ICD therapy based only on left ventricular dysfunction might not be beneficial in this subgroup.

Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) decreases mortality and improves symptoms, quality of life and exercise tolerance in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and wide QRS complex. 51–53 Similarly to the ICD trials, women were significantly underrepresented in the CRT trials, being approximately one-third of the total population enrolled. 51,52,54 At variance with ICD studies, subgroup analyses of CRT trials suggest that women may have a better response to CRT, although different studies showed conflicting results. 55–57 In a post hoc analysis of the Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation (MIRACLE) trial, Woo et al. reported significant differences in outcome based on gender, with women randomised to CRT having a significantly lower incidence of the combined endpoint of first heart failure hospitalisation or death compared with women allocated to the placebo arm. On the other hand, no difference was reported among men for the same endpoint. 57 In line with these results, Di Biase et al. found that female gender was an independent predictor of favourable left ventricular reverse remodelling following CRT, analysing data from a prospective registry of 398 consecutive patients (25 % female) undergoing CRT. 58

In the recent Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), CRT plus ICD was demonstrated superior to ICD alone in reducing the risk of heart failure in a population of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, a New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class of I or II, and prolonged QRS duration. 59 Remarkably, a pre-specified sub-analysis confirmed that females treated with CRT plus ICD had a greater reduction in the risk of heart failure than males (HR 0.37 [95 % CI 0.22–0.61] and HR 0.76 [95 % CI 0.59–0.97], respectively, p=0.01 for interaction). 59 In a subsequent analysis, the authors reported that women had consistently greater improvements in reverse cardiac remodelling with cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy than did men. 60

Several studies have shown gender difference in physiological and pathological remodelling associated with different cardiovascular diseases. 61–63 In addition, in failing human hearts, Guerra et al. demonstrated that the female heart is protected, at least in part, from necrotic and apoptotic death. 64 Based on these observations, it is possible that female patients have a more favourable substrate for reverse remodelling during CRT. 65

On the other hand, Bleeker et al. investigated the gender difference in response to CRT in 173 patients undergoing CRT implantation, 55 and found no significant sex-related difference in the clinical response to CRT. These latter findings were largely confirmatory of what emerged from the largest CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure (CARE- HF) 52 and COMPANION 51 trials, which failed to show significant gender differences in clinical response to CRT.

Conclusions

Gender seems to have a major impact on the outcome of invasive electrophysiological procedures, due to differences in epidemiology and clinical presentation of cardiac arrhythmias, coupled with differences in procedural success and complications. Typically, females with arrhythmias suitable for catheter ablation (e.g. AF and other supraventricular arrhythmias) are referred later to such procedures, which might in part explain the reported differences in outcomes. With regard to implantation of cardiac devices, such as ICD and CRT, the reported gender-related differences in outcomes could be explained by substantial differences in the epidemiology, underlying substrates and clinical course of females with severe left ventricular dysfunction.

References
  1. Rodriguez LM, de Chillou C, Schläpfer J, et al. Age at onset and gender of patients with different types of supraventricular tachycardias. Am J Cardiol 1992; 70 :1213–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Zimetbaum P, Josephson ME. Evaluation of patients with palpitations. N Engl J Med 1998; 338 :1369–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Munger TM, Packer DL, Hammill SC, et al. A population study of the natural history of Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1953-1989. Circulation 1993; 87 :866–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Porter MJ, Morton JB, Denman R, et al. Influence of age and gender on the mechanism of supraventricular tachycardia. Heart Rhythm 2004; 1 :393–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Hu YF, Huang JL, Wu TJ, et al. Gender differences of electrophysiological characteristics in focal atrial tachycardia. Am J Cardiol 2009; 104 :97–100.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Saba S, Zhu W, Aronovitz MJ, et al. Effects of estrogen on cardiac electrophysiology in female mice. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2002; 13 :276–80.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Myerburg RJ, Cox MM, Interian A Jr, et al. Cycling of inducibility of paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia in women and its implications for timing of electrophysiologic procedures. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83 :1049–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Rosano GM, Leonardo F, Sarrel PM, et al. Cyclical variation in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia in women. Lancet 1996; 347 :786–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Liuba I, Jönsson A, Säfström K, Walfridsson H. Gender-related differences in patients with atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia. Am J Cardiol 2006; 97 :384–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Klein GJ, Bashore TM, Sellers TD, et al. Ventricular fibrillation in the Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. N Engl J Med 1979; 301 :1080–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Calkins H, Yong P, Miller JM, et al. Catheter ablation of accessory pathways, atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia, and the atrioventricular junction: final results of a prospective, multicenter clinical trial. The Atakr Multicenter Investigators Group. Circulation 1999; 99 :262–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Blomström-Lundqvist C, Scheinman MM, Aliot EM, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias--executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Supraventricular Arrhythmias). Circulation 2003; 108 :1871–909.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Goyal R, Zivin A, Souza J, et al. Comparison of the ages of tachycardia onset in patients with atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia and accessory pathway-mediated tachycardia. Am Heart J 1996; 132 :765–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Dagres N, Clague JR, Breithardt G, Borggrefe M. Significant gender-related differences in radiofrequency catheter ablation therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42 :1103–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Benjamin EJ, Levy D, Vaziri SM, et al. Independent risk factors for atrial fibrillation in a population-based cohort. The Framingham Heart Study. JAMA 1994; 271 :840–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Hnatkova K, Waktare JE, Murgatroyd FD, et al. Age and gender influences on rate and duration of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998; 21 :2455–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, D’Agostino RB, et al. Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of death: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1998; 98 :946–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Dagres N, Nieuwlaat R, Vardas PE, et al. Gender-related differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation in Europe: a report from the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49 :572–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Cabin HS, Clubb KS, Hall C, et al. Risk for systemic embolization of atrial fibrillation without mitral stenosis. Am J Cardiol 1990; 65 :1112–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Forleo GB, Tondo C, De Luca L, et al. Gender-related differences in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Europace 2007; 9 :613–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Patel D, Mohanty P, Di Biase L, et al. Outcomes and complications of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in females. Heart Rhythm 2010 ; 7 :167–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Lee SH, Tai CT, Hsieh MH, et al. Predictors of non-pulmonary vein ectopic beats initiating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: implication for catheter ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46 :1054–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Jones PP, Snitker S, Skinner JS, Ravussin E. Gender differences in muscle sympathetic nerve activity: effect of body fat distribution. Am J Physiol 1996; 270 :E363–6.
    PubMed
  24. Yamasaki Y, Kodama M, Matsuhisa M, et al. Diurnal heart rate variability in healthy subjects: effects of aging and sex difference. Am J Physiol 1996; 271 :H303–10.
    PubMed
  25. Natale A, Newby KH, Pisanó E, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic therapy versus first-line radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial flutter. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35 :1898–904.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Kuck KH, Schaumann A, Eckardt L, et al. Catheter ablation of stable ventricular tachycardia before defibrillator implantation in patients with coronary heart disease (VTACH): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375 :31–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Reddy VY, Reynolds MR, Neuzil P, et al. Prophylactic catheter ablation for the prevention of defibrillator therapy. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 :2657–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Stevenson WG, Wilber DJ, Natale A, et al. Irrigated radiofrequency catheter ablation guided by electroanatomic mapping for recurrent ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction: the multicenter thermocool ventricular tachycardia ablation trial. Circulation 2008; 118 :2773–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Schüppel R, Büchele G, Batz L, Koenig W. Sex differences in selection of pacemakers: retrospective observational study. BMJ 1998; 316 :1492–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Brunner M, Olschewski M, Geibel A, et al. Long-term survival after pacemaker implantation. Prognostic importance of gender and baseline patient characteristics. Eur Heart J 2004; 25 :88–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Sweeney MO, Bank AJ, Nsah E, et al. Minimizing ventricular pacing to reduce atrial fibrillation in sinus-node disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 :1000–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Gillis AM, Russo AM, Ellenbogen KA, et al. HRS/ACCF expert consensus statement on pacemaker device and mode selection: Developed in partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Heart Rhythm 2012; 9 :1344–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Lamas GA, Pashos CL, Normand SL, McNeil B. Permanent pacemaker selection and subsequent survival in elderly Medicare pacemaker recipients. Circulation 1995; 91 :1063–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. El-Chami MF, Hanna IR, Bush H, Langberg JJ. Impact of race and gender on cardiac device implantations. Heart Rhythm 2007; 4 :1420–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Nowak B, Misselwitz B, Erdogan A, et al. Do gender differences exist in pacemaker implantation?-results of an obligatory external quality control program. Europace 2010; 12 :210–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Peterson PN, Daugherty SL, Wang Y, et al. Gender differences in procedure-related adverse events in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Circulation 2009; 119 :1078–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Reynolds MR, Cohen DJ, Kugelmass AD, et al. The frequency and incremental cost of major complications among medicare beneficiaries receiving implantable cardioverter- defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47 :2493–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Beauregard LA. Incidence and management of arrhythmias in women. J Gend Specif Med 2002; 5 :38–48.
  39. Pyatt JR, Somauroo JD, Jackson M, et al. Long-term survival after permanent pacemaker implantation: analysis of predictors for increased mortality. Europace 2002; 4 :113–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Pelargonio G, Bisceglia C. Differences between women and men with ICDs: myth or reality?. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2009; 20 :979–81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Russo AM, Day JD, Stolen K, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators: do women fare worse than men? Gender comparison in the INTRINSIC RV trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2009; 20 :973–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Russo AM, Poole JE, Mark DB, et al. Primary prevention with defibrillator therapy in women: results from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2008; 19 :720–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Russo AM, Stamato NJ, Lehmann MH, et al. Influence of gender on arrhythmia characteristics and outcome in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2004; 15 :993–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Zareba W, Moss AJ, Jackson Hall W, et al. Clinical course and implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in postinfarction women with severe left ventricular dysfunction. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2005; 16 :1265–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Santangeli P, Pelargonio G, Dello Russo A, et al. Gender differences in clinical outcome and primary prevention defibrillator benefit in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm 2010; 7 :876–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Wigginton JG, Pepe PE, Bedolla JP, et al. Sex-related differences in the presentation and outcome of out-of- hospital cardiopulmonary arrest: a multiyear, prospective, population-based study. Crit Care Med 2002; 30 :S131–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Kannel WB, Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Cobb J. Sudden coronary death in women. Am Heart J 1998; 136 :205–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Peters RW, Gold MR. The influence of gender on arrhythmias. Cardiol Rev. 2004; 12 :97–105.
    Crossref
  49. Albert CM, McGovern BA, Newell JB, Ruskin JN. Sex differences in cardiac arrest survivors. Circulation 1996; 93 :1170–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Vaitkus PT, Kindwall KE, Miller JM, et al. Influence of gender on inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias in survivors of cardiac arrest with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1991; 67 :537–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, et al. Cardiac- resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2004; 350 :2140–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 :1539–49.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Santangeli P, Di Biase L, Pelargonio G, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with mild heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2011; 32 :125–35.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Abraham WT. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure: biventricular pacing and beyond. Curr Opin Cardiol 2002; 17 :346–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Bleeker GB, Schalij MJ, Boersma E, et al. Does a gender difference in response to cardiac resynchronization therapy exist? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2005; 28 :1271–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Lilli A, Ricciardi G, Porciani MC, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy: gender related differences in left ventricular reverse remodeling. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007; 30 :1349–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Woo GW, Petersen-Stejskal S, Johnson JW, et al. Ventricular reverse remodeling and 6-month outcomes in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy: analysis of the MIRACLE study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2005; 12 :107–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Di Biase L, Auricchio A, Sorgente A, et al. The magnitude of reverse remodelling irrespective of aetiology predicts outcome of heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J 2008; 29 :2497–505.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 :1329–38.
    Crossref
  60. Arshad A, Moss AJ, Foster E, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is more effective in women than in men: the MADIT- CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57 :813–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Crabbe DL, Dipla K, Ambati S, et al. Gender differences in post-infarction hypertrophy in end-stage failing hearts. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41 : 300–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Bella JN, Palmieri V, Wachtell K, et al. Sex-related difference in regression of left ventricular hypertrophy with antihypertensive treatment: the LIFE study. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18 :411–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Carroll JD, Carroll EP, Feldman T, et al. Sex-associated differences in left ventricular function in aortic stenosis of the elderly. Circulation 1992; 86 :1099–107.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Guerra S, Leri A, Wang X, et al. Myocyte death in the failing human heart is gender dependent. Circ Res. 1999; 85 :856–66.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Kirubakaran S, Ladwiniec A, Arujuna A, et al. Male gender and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease predict a poor clinical response in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronisation therapy. Int J Clin Pract 2011; 65 :281–8.
    Crossref | PubMed