RNCohortEuropean journal of cardiovascular nursing2017

Clinical and gender differences in heart transplant recipients in the NEW HEART study.

Kathleen T Hickey, Lynn V Doering, Belinda Chen and 6 others

PMID 27189203

WHAT IT FOUND

In 330 heart transplant patients, men were older and had more risk factors.

Women had more rejection episodes (3.9 vs 3.0), more moderate or severe rejection (14% vs 5%), and more hospitalizations (59% vs 46%). Mortality did not differ.

Key findings

01Of 345 enrolled heart transplant recipients, 330 were included in this gender analysis; men were 72% of the included group.

02Men were older and had more cardiovascular risk factors than women: 45% of men were over 60 versus 24% of women, and men had more hypertension (63% vs 49%), dyslipidemia (62% vs 45%), smoking (52% vs 35%), and diabetes (42% vs 21%).

03Women had more rejection episodes (3.9 vs 3.0), more moderate or severe rejection (14% vs 5%), and more hospitalizations overall (59% vs 46%) and for acute rejection (15% vs 6%); mortality did not differ (2% vs 5%).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This was an observational sub-study of an ongoing study, so it cannot show why gender differences occurred. Some enrolled participants were excluded for incomplete clinical information. Data on symptoms, social support, mental health, medication use, heart failure duration, donor pool, and duration of mechanical support were not available.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that being female causes worse transplant outcomes. This observational sub-study compared groups and did not control for all factors; symptoms, social support, mental health, medication use, heart failure duration, donor pool, and duration of mechanical support were not available.

Read it on PubMed →