Linda Worrall-Carter1, Samantha McEvedy2, Andrew Wilson3, Muhammad Aziz Rahman4. 1. Her Heart Ltd, Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Centre for Nursing Research (SVCNR), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; The Cardiovascular Research Centre (CvRC), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: lindaworrallcarter@herheart.org.au. 2. St Vincent's Centre for Nursing Research (SVCNR), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia. 3. St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; The Cardiovascular Research Centre (CvRC), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. St Vincent's Centre for Nursing Research (SVCNR), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; The Cardiovascular Research Centre (CvRC), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia; Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research (MMIHR), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in demographics, presenting characteristics, and treatment of heart disease in women may contribute to adverse outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to describe gender differences in the epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of all admissions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Victoria that occurred between June 2007 and July 2009. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to Victorian hospitals with a first time diagnosis of ACS. Use of angiograms, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and adverse outcomes (death and/or unplanned readmission) were compared by gender and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to account for confounding variables. RESULTS: Of a total of 28,985 ACS patients, 10,455 (36%) were women. Compared with men, women were older (aged ≥75 years: 54% vs 31%; p < .001), more likely to present with multiple comorbidities (>1 comorbidity: 53% vs 46%; p < .001), and more likely to be diagnosed with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (86% vs 80%; p < .001). Women were less likely to receive coronary interventions (angiogram: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75; PCI: aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.80; CABG: aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.64). Adverse outcomes were similar in women and men after accounting for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that women in Victoria were less likely to receive coronary interventions after an admission for ACS. Clinicians should be wary of inherent gender bias in decisions to refer patients for angiography.
BACKGROUND: Differences in demographics, presenting characteristics, and treatment of heart disease in women may contribute to adverse outcomes. The purpose of this paper was to describe gender differences in the epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of all admissions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Victoria that occurred between June 2007 and July 2009. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to Victorian hospitals with a first time diagnosis of ACS. Use of angiograms, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and adverse outcomes (death and/or unplanned readmission) were compared by gender and hierarchical logistic regression models were used to account for confounding variables. RESULTS: Of a total of 28,985 ACS patients, 10,455 (36%) were women. Compared with men, women were older (aged ≥75 years: 54% vs 31%; p < .001), more likely to present with multiple comorbidities (>1 comorbidity: 53% vs 46%; p < .001), and more likely to be diagnosed with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (86% vs 80%; p < .001). Women were less likely to receive coronary interventions (angiogram: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.66-0.75; PCI: aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.80; CABG: aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.64). Adverse outcomes were similar in women and men after accounting for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that women in Victoria were less likely to receive coronary interventions after an admission for ACS. Clinicians should be wary of inherent gender bias in decisions to refer patients for angiography.
Authors: K H Humphries; M Izadnegahdar; T Sedlak; J Saw; N Johnston; K Schenck-Gustafsson; R U Shah; V Regitz-Zagrosek; J Grewal; V Vaccarino; J Wei; C N Bairey Merz Journal: Front Neuroendocrinol Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 8.333
Authors: Derrick Lopez; Lee Nedkoff; Matthew Knuiman; Michael S T Hobbs; Thomas G Briffa; David B Preen; Joseph Hung; John Beilby; Sushma Mathur; Anna Reynolds; Frank M Sanfilippo Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alexandre de Matos Soeiro; Pedro Gabriel Melo de Barros E Silva; Eduardo Alberto de Castro Roque; Aline Siqueira Bossa; Bruno Biselli; Tatiana de Carvalho Andreucci Torres Leal; Maria Carolina Feres de Almeida Soeiro; Fábio Grunspun Pitta; Carlos V Serrano; Múcio Tavares Oliveira Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Oras A Alabas; Chris P Gale; Marlous Hall; Mark J Rutherford; Karolina Szummer; Sofia Sederholm Lawesson; Joakim Alfredsson; Bertil Lindahl; Tomas Jernberg Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 6.106