Disparity in implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy among minority South Asians in the United Kingdom.
Clicks: 323
ID: 102847
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.4
/100
323 views
27 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #5 of 5 articles by views in heart (british cardiac society)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
There are large geographical differences in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation rates for reasons not completely understood. In an increasingly multiethnic population, we sought out to investigate whether ethnicity influenced ICD implantation rates.This was a retrospective, cohort study of new ICD implantation or upgrade to ICD from January 2006 to February 2019 in recipients of Caucasian or South Asian ethnicity at a single tertiary centre in the UK. Data were obtained from a routinely collected local registry. Crude rates of ICD implantation were calculated for the population of Leicestershire county and were age-standardised to the UK population using the UK National Census of 2011.The Leicestershire population was 980 328 at the time of the Census, of which 761 403 (77.7%) were Caucasian and 155 500 (15.9%) were South Asian. Overall, 2650 ICD implantations were performed in Caucasian (91.9%) and South Asian (8.1%) patients. South Asians were less likely than Caucasians to receive an ICD (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49, p<0.001) even when standardised for age (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.75, p<0.001). This remained the case for primary prevention indication (age-standardised RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.91, p<0.001), while differences in secondary prevention ICD implants were even greater (age-standardised RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.50, p<0.001).Despite a universal and free healthcare system, ICD implantation rates were significantly lower in the South Asian than the Caucasian population residing in the UK. Whether this is due to cultural acceptance or an unbalanced consideration is unclear.
| Reference Key |
mistry2020disparityheart
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Mistry, Amar;Vali, Zakariyya;Sidhu, Bharat;Budgeon, Charley;Yuyun, Matthew F;Pooranachandran, Vivetha;Li, Xin;Newton, Michelle;Watts, Jamie;Khunti, Kamlesh;Samani, Nilesh J;Ng, G Andre; |
| Journal | heart (british cardiac society) |
| Year | 2020 |
| DOI |
heartjnl-2019-315978
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.