Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 2, 2025

A New Single Chamber Implantable Defibrillator with Atrial Sensing: A Practical Demonstration of Sensing and Ease of Implantation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Sex-Based Differences in Selected Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Use: A 10-Year Statewide Patient Cohort
Kasun De Silva1,2, Natasha Nassar2,3,4, Tim Badgery-Parker3,5
1Department of Cardiology Westmead Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia.
Insights
Women received fewer cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) than men across most indications, including heart block and ventricular tachycardia. This underuse suggests potential sex bias in CIED implantation, warranting further investigation.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Health Equity
Background:
- Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) encompass pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy.
- Understanding sex-based disparities in CIED implantation is crucial for equitable cardiovascular care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the rates of CIED implantation and associated outcomes in men versus women.
- To examine sex-based differences in CIED use across various cardiovascular indications and device types.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective cohort study analyzed cardiovascular hospitalizations in New South Wales, Australia (2008-2018).
- Data included 287,963 patients with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope, of whom 29,080 received a CIED.
- Implantation rates were compared between sexes, adjusting for age and comorbidities, with analysis of specific indications and 30-day survival.
Main Results:
- Women were less likely than men to receive pacemakers (aOR 0.78), defibrillators (aOR 0.4), and resynchronization therapy (aOR 0.66).
- These disparities persisted across specific conditions, including complete heart block, syncope, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest, and cardiomyopathy.
- Both men and women receiving CIEDs had improved 30-day survival compared to non-recipients, with similar survival rates between sexes for device recipients.
Conclusions:
- Women experience lower rates of CIED implantation compared to men across a wide spectrum of cardiovascular conditions.
- The observed underuse of CIEDs in women suggests a potential sex bias in clinical practice that requires further research and attention.
- Ensuring equitable access to life-saving CIEDs for all patients, regardless of sex, is essential for improving cardiovascular health outcomes.
Abstract:
Background Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) include pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy. This study aimed to assess CIED implantation and outcomes by sex and indication. Methods and Results This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with cardiovascular hospitalizations in New South Wales, Australia (2008 to 2018). CIED implantation in patients with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, and syncope were examined. Subcategories (complete heart block, atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest, sick sinus syndrome, and ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy) were investigated. Primary outcome was implantation of CIEDs in men versus women adjusted for age and comorbidities. Secondary outcomes were trends over time, time to implant, length of stay, emergency status, and 30-day survival. Of 1 291 258 patients with cardiovascular admissions, 287 563 had arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope and 29 080 (2.3%) received a CIED (22 472 pacemakers, 6808 defibrillators, 3207 resynchronization therapy). Women with arrhythmia, cardiomyopathy, or syncope were less likely to have pacemakers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76-0.80]), defibrillators (aOR, 0.4, [95% CI, 0.40-0.45]) and resynchronization therapy (aOR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.61-0.71]). Differences persisted across subcategories, including fewer pacemakers in complete heart block (aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.98]) and syncope (aOR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.79]); fewer defibrillators in ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest (aOR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.61-0.77]); and less resynchronization therapy in cardiomyopathy (aOR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.51-0.75]). Men and women receiving devices had higher 30-day survival compared with those who did not receive a device, and 30-day survival was similar between men and women receiving devices. Conclusions Lower CIED implantation was seen in women versus men, across nearly all indications, including complete heart block and ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest. The underuse of cardiac devices among women may arguably reflect a sex bias and requires further research.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization
Cardiac Catheterization III: Left Heart Catheterization

