Coronary artery disease burden in women poorly explained by traditional risk factors: Sex disaggregated analyses from the BioHEART-CT study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Targeting the modifiable risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial impact at the community level. However, it is not uncommon for individuals to present with atherosclerosis related events without identified risk factors. We examined sex differences in the association of risk factors and atherosclerotic burden assessed by CT coronary angiography (CTCA). METHODS: We analysed clinical and imaging data in 1002 individuals in the BioHEART cohort. RESULTS: 45% were female, 35% had no CAD identified. Median coronary calcium score was 9.9 Agatston units (IQR: 0-146), and median Gensini Score was 3.5 (IQR: 0-11.5). 26% had a calcified plaque predominant phenotype, and 18% had a non-calcified plaque predominant phenotype. There were no sex differences in the prevalence of risk factors. However, there were notable sex differences in the adjusted associations of risk factors with CAD. Age and hypercholesterolaemia (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.36, p = 0.04 in males, and OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.09-2.78, p = 0.02 in females) were associated with the presence of CAD in both genders (p < 0.05). Diabetes and smoking were associated with presence of CAD, calcified CAD, and non-calcified plaque in males (p < 0.05) but not females. In women, none of the standard modifiable risk factors were associated with the amount of plaque present when adjusted for age, BMI, and family history of premature CAD. CONCLUSIONS: CTCA provides an important opportunity for improving the stratification of cohorts to assess underlying biology and risk. We demonstrate sex-specific differences in associations of risk factors with atherosclerosis burden.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation discussions: Reality versus recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a cornerstone in the treatment of life-threatening arrhythmias. As rates of device implantation continue to rise throughout Europe, European and International guidelines recommend professionals discuss deactivation with patients. In reality the appropriate therapeutic management of an ICD at the end-of-life remains uncertain in the minds of professionals and patients. AIM: To identify current practice and examine professional decision-making for patients with an ICD from time of implantation to final documentation and demise. METHODS: Retrospective case note review of patients with an ICD who died during a 12 month period at a regional implantation centre. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were identified and medical notes of 44 of these patients were successfully retrieved. The majority of patients were male, mean age at time of death 73 years with one-third diagnosed with a malignancy prior to death. There was no documented evidence patients were informed about deactivation prior to ICD implantation. End-of-life management was discussed with 23 patients and on 17 occasions deactivation was included. Median time from discussion to death was seven days. In total 62.5% of patients who experienced a shock had an active ICD at death, while 93.7% who had their ICD deactivated never had a shock (p=0.003). CONCLUSION: Patients were not adequately informed regarding device deactivation prior to implantation, nor when their health deteriorated. The experience of a shock potentially affects professional decision making regarding device deactivation.