English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death is the main indication for ICD implantation, mainly based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Gender differences in the diagnosis and treatment of some cardiology conditions such as myocardial infarction have been previously established. Purpose We aim to analyze differences in prognostic variables that could justify gender differences in the non-prescription of an ICD for primary prevention.   Methods A retrospective selection of patients from our center during 2019 with ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVED ≤35% in an echocardiogram) was made. We included patients at least one month after an acute myocardial infarction and with optimal medical treatment without an ICD. Death was considered during the year 2019. Results  We initially selected 325 patients with ventricular dysfunction, of wich 175 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (67.4% men and 32.6% women). ICD indication was considered in 47 patients out of the 175 selected (29.7% among men and 21.1% among women, p = 0.7; 70.3% among men and 78.9% among women, p= 0.30 for non-prescription). The index left ventricle end-diastolic volume (iLVEDV) was significantly worse in males. Females were older and had lower LVEF. Conclusion Although it is a unicenter study and we have only performed univariate comparisons, without considering confounding factors, we found no significant gender differences in prognostic variables that could justify differences in the non-prescription of an ICD for primary prevention. Results Variable Men Women p-value Age (years) 74.53 ± 0.11 79.52 ± 0.15 &amp;lt;0.01 Previous cancer disease 11 (13.25%) 4 (8.89%) 0.77 Cognitive impairment 12 (14.46%) 11 (24.44%) 0.08 NYHA class Mean NYHA class value I (12.05%)II (69.88%)III (18.07%)2.06 ± 0.11 I (6.67%)II (66.67%)III (26.67%)2.20 ± 0.15 0.23 Ischemic etiology 39 (46.99%) 17 (37.78) 0.84 Renal insufficiency 31 (37.35%) 21 (46.67%) 0.15 Syncope or palpitations 16 (19.28%) 8 (17.78%) 0.58 LVEDD index (cm/m2) 2.57 ± 0.11 2.71 ± 0.15 0.23 LVEDV index (ml/m2) 73.18 ± 0.11 66.84 ± 0.15 1 LVEF (%) 28.89 ± 0.11 27.17 ± 0.15 1 Death 17 (20.48%) 8 (17.78%) 0.64 Renal insufficiency: estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 30 ml/min/1,73m2 or dialysis. LVEDD: left ventricle end-diastolic diameter. NYHA: New York Heart Association.

Are there gender differences in the non-prescription of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs) in primary prevention? A single-center series