BACKGROUND: Sex disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of chest pain or suspected angina have been demonstrated in multiple clinical settings. Out-of-hospital (OOH) care for chest pain is protocol-driven and may be less likely to demonstrate differences between men and women. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the relationship between sex and the OOH treatment of patients with chest pain. The authors sought to test the hypothesis that OOH care for chest pain patients would differ by sex. METHODS: A 1-year retrospective cohort study of 683 emergency medical services (EMS) patients with a complaint of chest pain was conducted. Included were patients taken to any one of three hospitals (all cardiac referral centers) by a single municipal EMS system. Excluded were patients transported by basic life support (BLS) units, those younger than 30 years, and patients with known contraindications to any of the outcome measures. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. The main outcome was adherence to state EMS protocols for treatment of patients over age 30 years with undifferentiated chest pain. Rates of administration of aspirin, nitroglycerin, and oxygen; establishment of intravenous (IV) access; and cardiac monitoring were measured. RESULTS: A total of 342 women and 341 men were included. Women were less likely than men to receive aspirin (relative risk [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59 to 0.96), nitroglycerin (RR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), or an IV (RR 0.86; 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.96). These differences persisted after adjustment for demographics and emergency department (ED) evaluation for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as a blunt marker for cardiac risk. Women were also less likely to receive these treatments among the small subgroup of patients who were later diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CONCLUSIONS: For OOH patients with chest pain, sex disparities in treatment are significant and do not appear to be explained by differences in patient age, race, or underlying cardiac risk. (c) 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
BACKGROUND: Sex disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of chest pain or suspected angina have been demonstrated in multiple clinical settings. Out-of-hospital (OOH) care for chest pain is protocol-driven and may be less likely to demonstrate differences between men and women. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the relationship between sex and the OOH treatment of patients with chest pain. The authors sought to test the hypothesis that OOH care for chest painpatients would differ by sex. METHODS: A 1-year retrospective cohort study of 683 emergency medical services (EMS) patients with a complaint of chest pain was conducted. Included were patients taken to any one of three hospitals (all cardiac referral centers) by a single municipal EMS system. Excluded were patients transported by basic life support (BLS) units, those younger than 30 years, and patients with known contraindications to any of the outcome measures. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. The main outcome was adherence to state EMS protocols for treatment of patients over age 30 years with undifferentiated chest pain. Rates of administration of aspirin, nitroglycerin, and oxygen; establishment of intravenous (IV) access; and cardiac monitoring were measured. RESULTS: A total of 342 women and 341 men were included. Women were less likely than men to receive aspirin (relative risk [RR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59 to 0.96), nitroglycerin (RR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), or an IV (RR 0.86; 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.96). These differences persisted after adjustment for demographics and emergency department (ED) evaluation for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as a blunt marker for cardiac risk. Women were also less likely to receive these treatments among the small subgroup of patients who were later diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CONCLUSIONS: For OOHpatients with chest pain, sex disparities in treatment are significant and do not appear to be explained by differences in patient age, race, or underlying cardiac risk. (c) 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Authors: Jean McSweeney; Mario A Cleves; Ellen P Fischer; Debra K Moser; Jeanne Wei; Christina Pettey; Martha O Rojo; Narain Armbya Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Rasmus Strandmark; Johan Herlitz; Christer Axelsson; Andreas Claesson; Anders Bremer; Thomas Karlsson; Maria Jimenez-Herrera; Annica Ravn-Fischer Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Rebecka Rubenson Wahlin; Sari Ponzer; Hanna Lövbrand; Markus Skrivfars; Hans Morten Lossius; Maaret Castrén Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2016-01-19
Authors: Tom Quinn; Sigurd Johnsen; Chris P Gale; Helen Snooks; Scott McLean; Malcolm Woollard; Clive Weston Journal: Heart Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.994