{"title":"心跳:心脏性猝死的性别差异","authors":"C. Otto","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major cause of death worldwide, with a higher prevalence in men compared with women. To further understand sex differences in SCD presentation and outcomes, Skjelbred and colleagues looked at data on deaths in Denmark in 2010 and found that SCD accounted for 12.7% of all deaths with a male predominant (56% men, 44% women). The average age at SCD was higher in women (79 years) compared with men (71 years), with the greatest sex difference in SCD incidence rates in the age group from 35 to 50 years (incidence rate ratio 3.7, 95% CI 2.8 to 4.8) (figure 1). Women, compared with men, more often died at home (80.5% vs 69.7%, p<0.01) rather than in the hospital (16.8% vs 22.2%, p<0.01). The cause of SCD was coronary artery disease in about 40% of cases. Other causes (each <5%) included cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, aortic dissection, valve disease and cardiomyopathy. In the accompanying editorial, Tan and Remme suggest that SCD risk relates not only to biological sex differences but also to societal and environmental factors. In men, the cause of SCD usually is coronary artery disease and the initial rhythm typically is ventricular fibrillation. In contrast, the cause of SCD in women more often is ventricular hypertrophy, aortic dissection or myocarditis and the initial rhythm is likely to be pulseless electrical activity or asystole. Women also are more likely to have an unwitnessed event at home, thus, not receiving prompt resuscitation. Even when witnessed, women are less likely to be resuscitated by bystanders; the combination of a longer delay to resuscitation plus the low frequency of a shockable rhythm results in lower survival rates. The authors urge increased research and action to reduce the risk of SCD in both women and men. ‘Clearly, to reduce the societal burden of SCD, we must focus our efforts on earlier recognition of SCA risk. Given the complex underlying causes of SCA and in view of the observation that our ability at early recognition has been stagnant over the last decades, we must adopt a more comprehensive strategy and reap the benefit of relatively new methods which have so far been poorly used in SCA research, for example, artificial intelligencebased analysis of large data sets, genetic analysis and metabolomic analysis. We must also recognise that we should direct our view to the group in society that has so far received insufficient attention in SCA research, that is, individuals who are in the care of their general practitioner and have not (yet) been referred to a cardiologist.’ (figure 2). Another study in this issue of Heart addresses sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Based","PeriodicalId":9311,"journal":{"name":"British Heart Journal","volume":"108 1","pages":"989 - 991"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heartbeat: sex-based discrepancies in survival from sudden cardiac death\",\"authors\":\"C. Otto\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321429\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major cause of death worldwide, with a higher prevalence in men compared with women. To further understand sex differences in SCD presentation and outcomes, Skjelbred and colleagues looked at data on deaths in Denmark in 2010 and found that SCD accounted for 12.7% of all deaths with a male predominant (56% men, 44% women). The average age at SCD was higher in women (79 years) compared with men (71 years), with the greatest sex difference in SCD incidence rates in the age group from 35 to 50 years (incidence rate ratio 3.7, 95% CI 2.8 to 4.8) (figure 1). Women, compared with men, more often died at home (80.5% vs 69.7%, p<0.01) rather than in the hospital (16.8% vs 22.2%, p<0.01). The cause of SCD was coronary artery disease in about 40% of cases. Other causes (each <5%) included cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, aortic dissection, valve disease and cardiomyopathy. In the accompanying editorial, Tan and Remme suggest that SCD risk relates not only to biological sex differences but also to societal and environmental factors. In men, the cause of SCD usually is coronary artery disease and the initial rhythm typically is ventricular fibrillation. In contrast, the cause of SCD in women more often is ventricular hypertrophy, aortic dissection or myocarditis and the initial rhythm is likely to be pulseless electrical activity or asystole. Women also are more likely to have an unwitnessed event at home, thus, not receiving prompt resuscitation. Even when witnessed, women are less likely to be resuscitated by bystanders; the combination of a longer delay to resuscitation plus the low frequency of a shockable rhythm results in lower survival rates. The authors urge increased research and action to reduce the risk of SCD in both women and men. ‘Clearly, to reduce the societal burden of SCD, we must focus our efforts on earlier recognition of SCA risk. Given the complex underlying causes of SCA and in view of the observation that our ability at early recognition has been stagnant over the last decades, we must adopt a more comprehensive strategy and reap the benefit of relatively new methods which have so far been poorly used in SCA research, for example, artificial intelligencebased analysis of large data sets, genetic analysis and metabolomic analysis. We must also recognise that we should direct our view to the group in society that has so far received insufficient attention in SCA research, that is, individuals who are in the care of their general practitioner and have not (yet) been referred to a cardiologist.’ (figure 2). Another study in this issue of Heart addresses sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Based\",\"PeriodicalId\":9311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Heart Journal\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"989 - 991\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Heart Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321429\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
心脏性猝死(SCD)是世界范围内的一个主要死亡原因,男性的患病率高于女性。为了进一步了解SCD表现和结果的性别差异,Skjelbred及其同事查看了2010年丹麦的死亡数据,发现SCD占所有死亡人数的12.7%,其中男性占56%,女性占44%。女性患SCD的平均年龄(79岁)高于男性(71岁),在35岁至50岁年龄组中,SCD发病率的性别差异最大(发病率比3.7,95% CI 2.8至4.8)(图1)。与男性相比,女性更常死于家中(80.5%对69.7%,p<0.01)而不是医院(16.8%对22.2%,p<0.01)。约40%的SCD的病因是冠状动脉疾病。其他原因(均<5%)包括心律失常、心力衰竭、主动脉夹层、瓣膜疾病和心肌病。在随后的社论中,Tan和Remme认为SCD风险不仅与生理性别差异有关,还与社会和环境因素有关。在男性中,SCD的病因通常是冠状动脉疾病,最初的心律通常是心室颤动。相反,女性SCD的病因通常是心室肥大、主动脉夹层或心肌炎,最初的节律可能是无脉性电活动或心脏骤停。女性也更有可能在家中发生无人目击的事件,因此没有得到及时的复苏。即使有目击者在场,妇女也不太可能被旁观者救活;较长的复苏延迟加上较低频率的震荡心律导致较低的存活率。作者敦促增加研究和行动,以降低女性和男性患SCD的风险。“显然,为了减轻SCD的社会负担,我们必须集中精力及早发现SCA风险。”考虑到SCA的复杂潜在原因,并考虑到我们的早期识别能力在过去几十年里一直停滞不前,我们必须采取更全面的策略,并从迄今为止在SCA研究中使用较少的相对较新的方法中获益,例如,基于人工智能的大型数据集分析、遗传分析和代谢组学分析。我们还必须认识到,我们应该把我们的观点指向社会上迄今为止在SCA研究中没有得到足够关注的群体,也就是说,那些由全科医生照顾的个人,还没有被转介给心脏病专家。(图2)本期《心脏》杂志的另一项研究探讨了心血管疾病(CVD)危险因素中的性别(生物学)和性别(社会文化)差异。基于
Heartbeat: sex-based discrepancies in survival from sudden cardiac death
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major cause of death worldwide, with a higher prevalence in men compared with women. To further understand sex differences in SCD presentation and outcomes, Skjelbred and colleagues looked at data on deaths in Denmark in 2010 and found that SCD accounted for 12.7% of all deaths with a male predominant (56% men, 44% women). The average age at SCD was higher in women (79 years) compared with men (71 years), with the greatest sex difference in SCD incidence rates in the age group from 35 to 50 years (incidence rate ratio 3.7, 95% CI 2.8 to 4.8) (figure 1). Women, compared with men, more often died at home (80.5% vs 69.7%, p<0.01) rather than in the hospital (16.8% vs 22.2%, p<0.01). The cause of SCD was coronary artery disease in about 40% of cases. Other causes (each <5%) included cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, aortic dissection, valve disease and cardiomyopathy. In the accompanying editorial, Tan and Remme suggest that SCD risk relates not only to biological sex differences but also to societal and environmental factors. In men, the cause of SCD usually is coronary artery disease and the initial rhythm typically is ventricular fibrillation. In contrast, the cause of SCD in women more often is ventricular hypertrophy, aortic dissection or myocarditis and the initial rhythm is likely to be pulseless electrical activity or asystole. Women also are more likely to have an unwitnessed event at home, thus, not receiving prompt resuscitation. Even when witnessed, women are less likely to be resuscitated by bystanders; the combination of a longer delay to resuscitation plus the low frequency of a shockable rhythm results in lower survival rates. The authors urge increased research and action to reduce the risk of SCD in both women and men. ‘Clearly, to reduce the societal burden of SCD, we must focus our efforts on earlier recognition of SCA risk. Given the complex underlying causes of SCA and in view of the observation that our ability at early recognition has been stagnant over the last decades, we must adopt a more comprehensive strategy and reap the benefit of relatively new methods which have so far been poorly used in SCA research, for example, artificial intelligencebased analysis of large data sets, genetic analysis and metabolomic analysis. We must also recognise that we should direct our view to the group in society that has so far received insufficient attention in SCA research, that is, individuals who are in the care of their general practitioner and have not (yet) been referred to a cardiologist.’ (figure 2). Another study in this issue of Heart addresses sex (biological) and gender (sociocultural) differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Based