Claire E Raphael1, Mandeep Singh1, Malcolm Bell1, Daniel Crusan1, Ryan J Lennon1, Amir Lerman1, Abhiram Prasad1, Charanjit S Rihal1, Bernard J Gersh1, Rajiv Gulati2. 1. From the Department of Cardiovascular Diseases (C.E.R., M.S., M.B., A.L., A.P., C.S.R., B.J.G., R.G.) and Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (D.C., R.J.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 2. From the Department of Cardiovascular Diseases (C.E.R., M.S., M.B., A.L., A.P., C.S.R., B.J.G., R.G.) and Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics (D.C., R.J.L.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. gulati.rajiv@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women have higher rates of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether this is because of greater age and comorbidity burden or a sex-specific factor remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively assessed cause-specific long-term mortality after index percutaneous coronary intervention over 3 time periods (1991-1997, 1998-2005, and 2006-2012). Cause of death was determined using telephone interviews, medical records, and death certificates. We performed competing risks analyses of cause-specific mortality. A total of 6847 women and 16 280 men survived index percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalization 1991 to 2012. Women were older (mean±SD: 69.4±12 versus 64.8±11.7 years; P<0.001) with more comorbidities (mean±SD: Charlson index 2.1±2.1 versus 1.9±2.1; P<0.001). Across the 3 time periods, both sexes exhibited a decline in cardiac deaths at 5 years (26% relative decrease in women, 17% in men, trend P<0.001 for each). Although women had higher all-cause mortality compared with men in all eras, the excess mortality was because of noncardiac deaths. In the contemporary era, only a minority of deaths were cardiac (33.8% in women, 38.0% in men). After adjustment, there was no evidence for a sex-specific excess of risk for cardiac or noncardiac mortality. The commonest causes of death were chronic diseases and heart failure in women (5-year cumulative mortality, 5.4% and 3.9%) but cancer and myocardial infarction/sudden death in men (5.4% and 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The higher mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention in women is because of death from noncardiac causes. This is accounted for by baseline age and comorbidities rather than an additional sex-specific factor. These findings have implications for sex-specific clinical care and trial design.
BACKGROUND:Women have higher rates of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether this is because of greater age and comorbidity burden or a sex-specific factor remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively assessed cause-specific long-term mortality after index percutaneous coronary intervention over 3 time periods (1991-1997, 1998-2005, and 2006-2012). Cause of death was determined using telephone interviews, medical records, and death certificates. We performed competing risks analyses of cause-specific mortality. A total of 6847 women and 16 280 men survived index percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalization 1991 to 2012. Women were older (mean±SD: 69.4±12 versus 64.8±11.7 years; P<0.001) with more comorbidities (mean±SD: Charlson index 2.1±2.1 versus 1.9±2.1; P<0.001). Across the 3 time periods, both sexes exhibited a decline in cardiac deaths at 5 years (26% relative decrease in women, 17% in men, trend P<0.001 for each). Although women had higher all-cause mortality compared with men in all eras, the excess mortality was because of noncardiac deaths. In the contemporary era, only a minority of deaths were cardiac (33.8% in women, 38.0% in men). After adjustment, there was no evidence for a sex-specific excess of risk for cardiac or noncardiac mortality. The commonest causes of death were chronic diseases and heart failure in women (5-year cumulative mortality, 5.4% and 3.9%) but cancer and myocardial infarction/sudden death in men (5.4% and 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The higher mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention in women is because of death from noncardiac causes. This is accounted for by baseline age and comorbidities rather than an additional sex-specific factor. These findings have implications for sex-specific clinical care and trial design.
Authors: Zahara Meghji; Anita Nguyen; Benish Fatima; Jeffrey B Geske; Rick A Nishimura; Steve R Ommen; Brian D Lahr; Joseph A Dearani; Hartzell V Schaff Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Edward T Ha; Marc Cohen; Theodore J Gaeta; Manish A Parikh; Stephen J Peterson; Wilbert S Aronow Journal: Arch Med Sci Atheroscler Dis Date: 2021-07-19
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Lina Ya'Qoub; Mandeep Singh; Malcolm R Bell; Rajiv Gulati; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Pranathi R Sundaragiri; Virginia M Miller; Allan S Jaffe; Bernard J Gersh; David R Holmes; Gregory W Barsness Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: William J Hulme; Matthew Sperrin; Glen Philip Martin; Nick Curzen; Peter Ludman; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Mamas A Mamas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tomasz Urbanowicz; Michał Michalak; Anna Olasińska-Wiśniewska; Assad Haneya; Ewa Straburzyńska-Migaj; Michał Bociański; Marek Jemielity Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 2.895