Acute coronary syndromes in women: is treatment different? Should it be?

The vast majority of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials conducted over the past two decades support the view that women have persistently higher mortality and morbidity despite the introduction of new medical therapies and devices. Even after adjustment for older age, higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, smaller vessel size, and late presentation, some studies still point to a persistent sex disadvantage. Even in contemporary practice, women continue to have longer delays in presentation and treatment. Selection bias in unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) trials allows inclusion of large numbers of women with clinically insignificant coronary disease and may mistakenly shift results toward apparent benefit of a less aggressive approach. This bias causes further difficulty in determining efficacy and safety of new antithrombotic agents such as direct thrombin inhibitors and glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitors across the spectrum of ACS. In trials of UA/NSTEMI, use of objective evidence of ischemia such as elevated troponin levels, would greatly assist the determination of efficacy and benefit in women. Enrollment of more women in clinical trials and timely sex-specific analysis would promote a better understanding of the role of female gender in ACS and would facilitate better care of all patients.