The association between sex and cardiovascular risk and different responses to heart failure therapies is well established. However, sex related outcomes of different types of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy remains controversial.
Methods
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of MCS between sexes. We restricted inclusion to propensity score matched studies to minimize the risk of confounding. We pooled binary and continuous outcomes with odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD), respectively, under a random effects model.
Results
We pooled 6 propensity score matched studies evaluating sex related outcomes during short-term MCS, with 18,720 patients, of whom 9442 (50.5%) were male and 9278 (49.5%) were female. Subgroup analysis showed higher 30-day mortality during ECMO (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01-1.22; p = .038; I2 = 0%) in males, but lower 30-day mortality during Impella® therapy than females (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.94; p = .001; I2 = 0%). Males had a higher need of myocardial revascularization (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.56-5.99; p = .001; I2 = 0%), but a higher risk of acute kidney injury (OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.09-1.31; p < .001; I2 = 18%).
Conclusion
In-hospital and 30-day mortality were similar between females and males.
ChyouJYQinHButlerJ, et al.Sex-related similarities and differences in responses to heart failure therapies. Nat Rev Cardiol2024; 21: 498–516.
2.
BernhardtAMCopelandHDeswalA, et al.The international society for heart and lung transplantation/heart failure society of America guideline on acute mechanical circulatory support. J Heart Lung Transplant2023; 42: e1–e64.
3.
JawitzOKLawtonJSThibaultD, et al.Sex differences in coronary artery bypass grafting techniques: a society of thoracic surgeons database analysis. Ann Thorac Surg2022; 113: 1979–1988.
4.
VallabhajosyulaSYa’QoubLSinghM, et al.Sex disparities in the management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in the young. Circ: Heart Fail; 13. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007154, Epub ahead of print October 2020.
5.
OuweneelDMSchotborghJVLimpensJ, et al.Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med2016; 42: 1922–1934.
6.
CombesALeprincePLuytC-E, et al.Outcomes and long-term quality-of-life of patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med2008; 36: 1404–1411.
7.
PersicoNBourenneJRochA. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock: can we predict survival before decision of implantation?J Thorac Dis2016; 8: 2331–2333.
8.
BiancariFDalénMFioreA, et al.Multicenter study on postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2020; 159: 1844–1854.
9.
KrasivskyiIIvanovBVehrenbergJ, et al.Sex-related differences in short-term outcomes after mobile VA-ECMO implantation: five-year experience of an ECMO retrieval program. Life2022; 12: 1746.
10.
LorussoRRaffaGMAlenizyK, et al.Structured review of post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: part 1—adult patients. J Heart Lung Transplant2019; 38: 1125–1143.
11.
El SibaiRBachirREl SayedM. Outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use: a matched cohort study in hospitals across the United States. BioMed Res Int2018; 2018: 2428648.
12.
ChengRHachamovitchRKittlesonM, et al.Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg2014; 97: 610–616.
13.
ElsharkawyHALiLEsaWAS, et al.Outcome in patients who require venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2010; 24: 946–951.
14.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
15.
HigginsJThomasJChandlerJ, et al.Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 6.4 (Updated August 2023). Cochrane; 2023.
16.
ViechtbauerW. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat2005; 30: 261–293.
17.
HigginsJPTThompsonSG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med2002; 21(11): 1539–1558.
ChangF-CChouA-HHuangY-T, et al.Sex differences in utilisation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support and outcomes in Taiwan. BMC Anesthesiol2023; 23: 86.
20.
GerferSGaisendreesCDjordjevicI, et al.Gender-related propensity score match analysis of ECMO therapy in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in patients after myocardial revascularization. Perfusion2022; 37: 470–476.
21.
WangASNemethSKurlanskyP, et al.Sex differences in patients with cardiogenic shock requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2022; 164: 960–969.e6.
22.
WernlyBBüterSMasyukM, et al.Sex-specific outcomes of patients treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Invasive Cardiol2020; 32: 422–426.
23.
VallabhajosyulaSPrasadABellMR, et al.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in acute myocardial infarction in the United States, 2000 to 2014. Circ Heart Fail2019; 12: e005929.
24.
MullerGFlecherELebretonG, et al.The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med2016; 42: 370–378.
25.
OsmanMSyedMAbdul GhaffarY, et al.Gender-based outcomes of impeller pumps percutaneous ventricular assist devices. Cathet Cardio Intervent2021; 97: E627–E635. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29222. Epub ahead of print April 2021.
26.
ShahTAbu-MuchABatchelorWB, et al.Sex differences in pLVAD-assisted high-risk percutaneous Coronary Intervention: insights from the PROTECT III study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2023; 16: 1721–1729.
27.
ZhangRLRichardsTJBhamaJK, et al.Mortality differences between men and women following the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after myocardial infarction. J Heart Lung Transplant2014; 33: S247.
28.
DayanandSMartinezJMFigueredoVM, et al.Mechanical circulatory support in women. J Cardiol2021; 77: 209–216.
29.
ZetterstenEJäderlingGBellM, et al.Sex and gender aspects on intensive care. A cohort study. J Crit Care2020; 55: 22–27.
30.
KosmidouILeonMBZhangY, et al.Long-term outcomes in women and men following percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol2020; 75: 1631–1640.
31.
ShamkhaniWKinnairdTLudmanP, et al.Sex differences in high-risk but indicated coronary interventions (CHiP): national report from British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Registry. Cathet Cardio Intervent2022; 99: 447–456.
32.
Castro-DominguezYSWangYMingesKE, et al.Predicting in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol2021; 78: 216–229.
33.
MikhailPHowdenNMonjurM, et al.Coronary perforation incidence, outcomes and temporal trends (COPIT): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart2022; 9: e002076.
34.
KinnairdTKwokCSKontopantelisE, et al.Incidence, determinants, and outcomes of coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2013: an analysis of 527 121 cases from the British cardiovascular intervention society database. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2016; 9: e003449.
35.
RaoSVMcCoyLASpertusJA, et al.An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2013; 6: 897–904.
36.
DoyleBJTingHHBellMR, et al.Major femoral bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention: incidence, predictors, and impact on long-term survival among 17,901 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2005. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2008; 1: 202–209.
37.
DamlujiAATehraniBSinhaSS, et al.Position statement on vascular access safety for percutaneous devices in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2022; 15: 2003–2019.
38.
ShahTHaimiIYangY, et al.Meta-analysis of gender disparities in in-hospital care and outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol2021; 147: 23–32.
39.
Bravo-JaimesKMejiaMOAbelhadNI, et al.Gender differences in the outcomes of cardiogenic shock requiring percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Am J Cardiol2022; 174: 20–26.
40.
MwipatayiBPPicardoAMasilonyane-JonesTV, et al.Incidence and prognosis of vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Vasc Surg2013; 58: 1028–1036.e1.
41.
BlomkalnsALChenAYHochmanJS, et al.Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large-scale observations from the CRUSADE (can rapid risk stratification of unstable angina patients suppress adverse outcomes with early implementation of the American college of cardiology/American heart association guidelines) national quality improvement initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol2005; 45: 832–837.
42.
FergusonJJCohenMFreedmanRJ, et al.The current practice of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation: results from the Benchmark Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol2001; 38: 1456–1462.
43.
TranKDorseyCLeeJT, et al.Gender-related differences in iliofemoral arterial anatomy among abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Ann Vasc Surg2017; 44: 171–178.
44.
JosephSMBriscoMAColvinM, et al.Women with cardiogenic shock derive greater benefit from early mechanical circulatory support: an update from the cVAD registry. J Interv Cardiol2016; 29: 248–256.
45.
NersesianGLewinDOttS, et al.Temporary extracorporeal life support: single-centre experience with a new concept. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2024; 38: ivae043.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
