A systematic review and meta-analysis of gender differences in long-term mortality and cardiovascular events in peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Individual studies of peripheral artery disease (PAD) have indicated that gender discrepancies exist in the symptoms, functional status, and treatment usage. It remains uncertain whether these discrepancies result in different long-term outcomes. We examined the potential gender differences in mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with symptomatic PAD. METHODS: The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies from 2000 to January 2019. After a review of 13,582 citations, 14 articles were analyzed. The reported age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for gender differences in mortality and MACE were included in the meta-analysis. The mortality outcomes were stratified according to the clinical presentation and study context. RESULTS: Male gender was associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.16; P < .001) and MACE (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14; P < .001). In a stratified analysis, male gender was associated with a higher mortality risk for patients presenting with either critical limb ischemia (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10; P < .001) or mixed clinical presentations (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21; P < .001) but not for those with intermittent claudication (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.98-1.30; P = .09). Elevated mortality risk was evident after revascularization (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19; P = .003), hospitalization (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22; P < .001), and amputation (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10; P < .001), although not in outpatient clinics (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97-1.32; P = .13), in men compared with women. CONCLUSIONS: Greater mortality and MACE rates in men with PAD occurred despite other accepted gender disparities. The mechanisms underlying these gender differences in the outcomes for PAD patients require further investigation.

Predicted longevity of contemporary cardiac implantable electronic devices: A call for industry-wide "standardized" reporting.

BACKGROUND: Battery longevity is an important factor that may influence the selection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there remains a lack of industry-wide standardized reporting of predicted CIED longevity to facilitate informed decision-making for implanting physicians and payers. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the predicted longevity of current generation CIEDs using best-matched CIEDs settings to assess differences between brands and models. METHODS: Data were extracted for current model pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) from product manuals and, where absent, by communication with the manufacturers. Pacemaker longevity estimations were based on standardized pacing outputs (2.5V, 0.40-ms pulse width, 500-Ω impedance) and pacing loads of 50% or 100% at 60 bpm. ICD and CRT-D longevity were estimated at 0% pacing and 15% atrial plus 100% biventricular pacing, with essential capacitor reforms and zero clinical shocks. RESULTS: Mean maximum predicted longevity of single- and dual-chamber pacemakers was 12.0 ± 2.1 and 9.8 ± 1.9 years, respectively. Use of advanced features such as remote monitoring, prearrhythmia electrogram storage, and rate response can result in ∼1.4 years of reduction in longevity. Mean maximum predicted longevity of ICDs and CRT-Ds was 12.4 ± 3.0 and 8.8 ± 2.1 years, respectively. Of note, there were significant variations in predicted CIED longevity according to device manufacturers, with up to 44%, 42%, and 44% difference for pacemakers, ICDs, and CRT-Ds, respectively. CONCLUSION: Contemporary CIEDs demonstrate highly variable predicted longevity according to device manufacturers. This may impact on health care costs and long-term clinical outcomes.

Risk Factor Management and Atrial Fibrillation Clinics: Saving the Best for Last?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of AF is a complex process involving: 1) the prevention of thromboembolic complications with anticoagulation; 2) rhythm control; and 3) the detection and treatment of underlying heart disease. However, cardiometabolic risk factors, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obstructive sleep apnoea, have been proposed as contributors to the expanding epidemic of atrial fibrillation (AF). Thus, a fourth pillar of AF care would include aggressive targeting of interdependent, modifiable cardiovascular risk factors as part of an integrated care model. Such risk factor management could retard and reverse the pathological processes underlying AF and reduce AF burden.