Muhammed DEMİR, Tuncay GÜZEL, Nihat POLAT, Bünyamin YILDIRIM, Lokman ARGUN, Kamran İLDIRIMLI, Nizamettin TOPRAK, Mehmet ÖZBEK, Adem AKTAN, Raif KILIÇ, Kenan ATEŞ, Cansu ÖZTÜRK

Trend of Sex Differences and Predictors of Complications of Cardiac Electronic Device Implantations in the Southeast Anatolian Region of Turkey: An Observational Study

Objective: The comparison of complications after cardiac implantable electronic device procedures has not been studied adequately between both genders. Here, we examined the effect of gender on complications in the Southeast Anatolian Region of Turkey. Methods: A total of 1640 patients from 3 centers in the Southeast Anatolian Region of Turkey were randomly selected. We compared major adverse cardiac events (clinically significant hematoma, pericardial effusion or tamponade, pneumothorax, and device infection) between genders. Univariate and multivariate analyses were plotted to identify predictors of outcomes between both genders. Results: The overall rate of major adverse cardiac events was 3.8% (63 of 1640). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 4.1% (40 of 983) of the men and 3.5% (23 of 657) in the women groups (P=.557). The most complications were device-related infection (2.1%) and pneumothorax (1.3%) in both genders. Single- and dual-chamber pacemakers were more implanted in women than in men (11.7% vs. 6.2% and 32.6% vs. 20.1%, respectively, P < .001). On the contrary, single- and dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators were more implanted in men than in women (38.1% vs. 19.6% and 8.5% vs. 4.1%, respectively, P < .001). Additionally, warfarin treatment and history of heart failure were found predictors of major adverse cardiac events in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: This small-scale, real-life patient data revealed no remarkable distinction in terms of complications between both genders. Multinational randomized large-scale cohort trials are required to support our results

PDF

___

1. Baddour LM, Epstein AE, Erickson CC, et al. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(3):458-477. [CrossRef]
2. Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. 16-year trends in the infection burden for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in the United States 1993 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(10):1001- 1006. [CrossRef]
3. Sohail MR, Henrikson CA, Braid-Forbes MJ, Forbes KF, Lerner DJ. Mortality and cost associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(20):1821-1828. [CrossRef]
4. Pancholy SB, Shantha GP, Patel T, Cheskin LJ. Sex differences in short-term and long-term all-cause mortality among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous intervention: a metaanalysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1822-1830. [CrossRef]
5. Swaminathan RV, Feldman DN, Pashun RA, et al. Gender differences in in-hospital outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(3):362-368. [CrossRef]
6. Kaiser DW, Fan J, Schmitt S, et al. Gender differences in clinical outcomes after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;2(6):703-710. [CrossRef]
7. Mohamed MO, Volgman AS, Contractor T, et al. Trends of sex differences in outcomes of cardiac electronic device implantations in the United States. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(1):69-78. [CrossRef]
8. Mohamed MO, Greenspon A, Van Spall H, et al. Sex differences in rates and causes of 30-day readmissions after cardiac electronic device implantations: insights from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Int J Cardiol. 2020;302:67-74. [CrossRef]
9. Moore K, Ganesan A, Labrosciano C, et al. Sex differences in acute complications of cardiac implantable electronic devices: implications for patient safety. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(2):e010869. [CrossRef]
10. Nowak B, Misselwitz B, Expert committee ‘Pacemaker’, Institute of Quality Assurance Hessen, et al. Do gender differences exist in pacemaker implantation?—results of an obligatory external quality control program. Europace. 2010;12(2):210-215. [CrossRef]
11. Beauregard LA. Incidence and management of arrhythmias in women. J Gend Specif Med. 2002;5(4):38-48.
12. MacFadden DR, Crystal E, Krahn AD, et al. Sex differences in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator outcomes: findings from a prospective defibrillator database. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(3):195-203. [CrossRef]
13. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(5): 309-332. [CrossRef]
14. Lee JH, Lee SR, Choi EK, et al. Temporal trends of cardiac implantable electronic device implantations: a Nationwide population-based study. Korean Circ J. 2019;49(9):841-852. [CrossRef]
15. Aktoz M, Uçar MF, Yılmaztepe MA, Taylan G, Altay S. Gender differences and demographics and type of cardiac device over a 10-year period. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(1):27-32. [CrossRef]
16. Kiviniemi MS, Pirnes MA, Eränen HJ, Kettunen RV, Hartikainen JE. Complications related to permanent pacemaker therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999;22(5):711-720. [CrossRef]
17. Eberhardt F, Bode F, Bonnemeier H, et al. Long term complications in single and dual chamber pacing are influenced by surgical experience and patient morbidity. Heart. 2005;91(4):500-506. [CrossRef]