Sex Differences and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Pacemakers

Martin Riesenhuber, Andreas Spannbauer, Friedrich Rauscha, Herwig Schmidinger, Adelinde Boszotta, Thomas Pezawas, Christoph Schukro, Marianne Gwechenberger, Günter Stix, Anahit Anvari, Thomas Wrba, Cesar Khazen, Martin Andreas, Günther Laufer, Christian Hengstenberg, Mariann Gyöngyösi, Martin Riesenhuber, Andreas Spannbauer, Friedrich Rauscha, Herwig Schmidinger, Adelinde Boszotta, Thomas Pezawas, Christoph Schukro, Marianne Gwechenberger, Günter Stix, Anahit Anvari, Thomas Wrba, Cesar Khazen, Martin Andreas, Günther Laufer, Christian Hengstenberg, Mariann Gyöngyösi

Abstract

Introduction: Evidence of sex-related differences in patients with pacemakers regarding comorbidities is insufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship of cardiovascular comorbidities and sex category with properties of pacemaker implantation, pacemaker follow-up, and long-term survival. Methods: This retrospective, single-center cohort study consisted of 6,362 pacemaker-patients (39.7% female) enrolled between May 2000 and April 2015. Functional pacemaker parameters were registered at regular pacemaker controls. Survival status and cause of death were analyzed in relation to comorbidities, implanted pacing devices, and echocardiography. Survival analyses were plotted for a 10-year follow-up. Results: Patients with hypertension or hyperlipidemia had higher rates of implantations due to sick sinus syndrome (28.6 vs. 25.5% without hypertension, P < 0.001; 30.7 vs. 25.7% without hyperlipidemia, P < 0.001), while endocarditis was associated with higher rates of implantations due to AV block (46.7 vs. 33.4%, P < 0.001). Patients with valvular heart disease had higher rates of pacemaker implantation due to bradycardic atrial fibrillation (24.9 vs. 21.0% without valvular heart disease, P < 0.001). Ventricular pacing threshold increased in both sexes during the follow-up and was higher in women in the final follow-up (0.94 vs. 0.91 V in men, P = 0.002). During the 10-years follow-up, 6.1% of women and 8.6% of men underwent lead replacement (P = 0.054). Device and lead replacement rates were increased if the comorbidities coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, valvular heart disease, previous stroke/TIA, atrial arrhythmias, chronic kidney disease, or endocarditis were present. Diabetes and previous CABG increase the rates of device replacement, but not the rate of lead replacement. Severe tricuspid regurgitation after implantation of pacemaker was present in more men than women (14.4 vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). In a multivariate COX regression, the following variables were associated with independent decrease of 10-year survival: hypertension (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.64), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.53-2.19), tricuspid regurgitation after pacemaker implantation (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.26-1.74). Survival was independently increased in female sex (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99) and hyperlipidemia (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97). Conclusions: Cardiovascular comorbidities influenced significantly pacemaker implantations and long-term outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT03388281.

Keywords: brady arrhythmia; comorbidities; outcome; pacemaker (PM); survival.

Copyright © 2020 Riesenhuber, Spannbauer, Rauscha, Schmidinger, Boszotta, Pezawas, Schukro, Gwechenberger, Stix, Anvari, Wrba, Khazen, Andreas, Laufer, Hengstenberg and Gyöngyösi.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Baseline parameters (age and indication of device implantation) of patients receiving pacemaker. (A) Age distribution of women and men at the time of first PM implantation. (B) Sex differences in PM implantation. (C) Median first implantation age (99% confidence interval) for patients with different implantation indications. *indicates P < 0.01. AV block, atrioventricular block; BBB, bundle branch block; brady. AF, bradycardic atrial fibrillation; SSS, sick sinus syndrome.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Survival and cause of death in patients with pacemaker. (A) Cause of death including period from 2000 to 2015. (B) Survival in the selected 10-years follow-up after first PM implantation. (C) Cumulative survival in women and men with pacemaker displayed in total patient age. Follow-up of patients with a maximum age of up to 105 years was possible. Source of our survival analysis were data from the Austrian Federal Institute “Statistics Austria,” and 100% of enrolled patients had a complete match with the dataset of “Statistics Austria”.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Outcome in single- and dual-chamber pacemakers. (A) 10-year survival after first PM implantation for single- and dual-chamber PMs; P = 0.003 for comparison of women and men with dual-chamber PMs; P = 0.038 for the comparison of women and men with single-chamber PMs. (B) Cumulative incidence of device or lead replacements in a 10-year follow-up. (C) Cumulative incidence of lead replacements for single- and dual-chamber PMs in a 10-year follow-up. Kaplan–Meier plots show the number of events censored and number of remaining cases at years 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10.

References

    1. Writing Committee Members. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Barrett C, Edgerton JR, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline on the evaluation and management of patients with bradycardia and cardiac conduction delay: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the heart rhythm society. Heart Rhythm. (2019) 16:e128–226. 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.043
    1. Gillis AM, Russo AM, Ellenbogen KA, Swerdlow CD, Olshansky B, Al-Khatib SM, 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. 10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.06.026
    1. Di Fusco SA, Palazzo S, Colivicchi F, Santini M. The influence of gender on heart rhythm disease. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. (2014) 37:650–7. 10.1111/pace.12369
    1. Debski M, Ulman M, Zabek A, Haberka K, Lelakowski J, Małecka B. Gender differences in dual-chamber pacemaker implantation indications and long-term outcomes. Acta Cardiol. (2016) 71:41–5. 10.1080/AC.71.1.3132096
    1. Jiménez MP, Pérez OC, Carreño DL, García JC. Spanish pacemaker registry. 15th official report of the Spanish society of cardiology working group on cardiac pacing 2017. Rev Espanola Cardiol Engl Ed. (2018) 71:1059–68. 10.1016/j.rec.2018.08.015
    1. Swedish ICD & Pacemaker Registry Annual Statistical Report (2016). Available online at: (accessed July 10, 2019).
    1. Udo EO, van Hemel NM, Zuithoff NPA, Doevendans PA, Moons KGM. Prognosis of the bradycardia pacemaker recipient assessed at first implantation: a nationwide cohort study. Heart. (2013) 99:1573–8. 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304445
    1. Bradshaw PJ, Stobie P, Knuiman MW, Briffa TG, Hobbs MST. Life expectancy after implantation of a first cardiac permanent pacemaker (1995-2008): a population-based study. Int J Cardiol. (2015) 190:42–6. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.04.099
    1. Brunner M, Olschewski M, Geibel A, Bode C, Zehender M. Long-term survival after pacemaker implantation. Prognostic importance of gender and baseline patient characteristics. Eur Heart J. (2004) 25:88–95. 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.10.022
    1. Statistik Austria. Demographisches Jahrbuch 2016. Verlag Österreich GmbH (2017). Available online at: (accessed March 2, 2020).
    1. Varma N, Mittal S, Prillinger JB, Snell J, Dalal N, Piccini JP. Survival in women versus men following implantation of pacemakers, defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices in a large, nationwide cohort. J Am Heart Assoc. (2017) 6:e005031. 10.1161/JAHA.116.005031
    1. Dretzke J, Toff WD, Lip GYH, Raftery J, Fry-Smith A, Taylor R. Dual chamber versus single chamber ventricular pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2004) 2004:CD003710. 10.1002/14651858.CD003710.pub2
    1. Ouali S, Neffeti E, Ghoul K, Hammas S, Kacem S, Gribaa R, et al. . DDD versus VVIR pacing in patients, ages 70 and over, with complete heart block. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. (2009) 33:583–9. 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02636.x
    1. Flaker G, Greenspon A, Tardiff B, Schron E, Goldman L, Hellkamp A, et al. . Death in patients with permanent pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome. Am Heart J. (2003) 146:887–93. 10.1016/S0002-8703(03)00429-0
    1. Gadler F, Valzania C, Linde C. Current use of implantable electrical devices in Sweden: data from the Swedish pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. Europace. (2015) 17:69–77. 10.1093/europace/euu233
    1. Nowak B, Misselwitz B, Erdogan A, Funck R, Irnich W, Israel CW, et al. . Do gender differences exist in pacemaker implantation? Results of an obligatory external quality control program. Europace. (2010) 12:210–5. 10.1093/europace/eup312
    1. Pyatt JR, Somauroo JD, Jackson M, Grayson AD, Osula S, Aggarwal RK, et al. . Long-term survival after permanent pacemaker implantation: analysis of predictors for increased mortality. Europace. (2002) 4:113–9. 10.1053/eupc.2002.0233
    1. Schüppel R, Büchele G, Batz L, Koenig W. Sex differences in selection of pacemakers: retrospective observational study. BMJ. (1998) 316:1492–4. 10.1136/bmj.316.7143.1492
    1. Veerareddy S, Arora N, Caldito G, Reddy PC. Gender differences in selection of pacemakers: a single-center study. Gend Med. (2007) 4:367–73. 10.1016/S1550-8579(07)80066-0
    1. Helguera ME, Maloney JD, Pinski SL, Woscoboinik JR, Wilkoff BL, Castle LW. Long-term performance of endocardial pacing leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. (1994) 17:56–64. 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1994.tb01351.x
    1. Levine PA, Love CJ. Pacemaker diagnostics and evaluation of pacing system malfunction. In: Ellenhogen K, Kay G, Wilkoff B, editors. Clinical Cardiac Pacing and Defibrillation. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; (2000). p. 827–75.
    1. Dohrmann ML, Goldschlager NF. Myocardial stimulation threshold in patients with cardiac pacemakers: effect of physiologic variables, pharmacologic agents, and lead electrodes. Cardiol Clin. (1985) 3:527–37. 10.1016/S0733-8651(18)30650-7
    1. Masoudi FA, Havranek EP, Smith G, Fish RH, Steiner JF, Ordin DL, et al. . Gender, age, and heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2003) 41:217–23. 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02696-7
    1. Ferreira RG, Worthington A, Huang CC, Aranki SF, Muehlschlegel JD. Sex differences in the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction in cardiac surgical patients. J Card Surg. (2015) 30:238–45. 10.1111/jocs.12506
    1. Podlaha R, Falk A. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus and other risk factors of atherosclerosis in bradycardia requiring pacemaker treatment. Horm Metab Res Suppl Ser. (1992) 26:84–7.
    1. Lear JT, Lawrence IG, Burden AC. Prevalence of diabetes in elderly patients requiring permanent cardiac pacemaker insertion. Acta Diabetol. (1996) 33:169–70. 10.1007/BF00569430
    1. Jelić V, Belkić K, Djordjević M, Kocović D. Survival in 1,431 pacemaker patients: prognostic factors and comparison with the general population. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol PACE. (1992) 15:141–7. 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1992.tb03057.x

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다