Andrea De Lorenzo1,2. 1. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - Brazil. 2. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - Brazil.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) was considered, for years, a "male disease”, a concept that
influenced diagnostic and clinical decision-making processes.[1],[2] However, currently there is consistent evidence showing that CAD is
a leading cause of death in women. On the basis of pooled data from studies of the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (1995-2012), it is estimated that within one
year after a first myocardial infarction, 18% of males and 23% of females will die, and
the median survival time is, at ≥ 45 years of age, 8.2 years for males and 5.5
for females.[3] The underestimation of
cardiovascular risk among women frequently resulted in a more conservative treatment and
contributed to poorer outcomes.[4] In the
last decade, several studies have assessed the issue of gender disparities in the
diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of acute coronary syndromes (ACS).[2],[4] In this context, the study by Soeiro et al.[5] contributes to the understanding of this
issue by presenting data from a Brazilian registry of ACS.In this multicenter registry, the primary endpoint was in-hospital, all-cause mortality,
and the secondary endpoint was the combination of cardiogenic shock, death,
reinfarction, ischemic stroke and bleeding during a mean follow-up of 8 months. Just
like any registry, it has limitations, such as the absence of data on other diseases
like cancer, as well as on the differences in post-discharge management, adherence to
treatment, among others, all which might influence survival in any group. Nonetheless,
it has a large number of patients (2,437 men and 1,308 women) and may offer an
interesting view of the Brazilian scenario of gender differences in ACS.Of note, at presentation, women less often had ST-elevation and multivessel CAD than men,
but were older and more frequently diabetic, dyslipidemic and hypertensive. These data
are in line with other studies.[6]
Unfortunately, data on symptoms at presentation are not available. It is known that, in
ACS, women are less likely to present with classical angina symptoms, which may lead to
under and/or misdiagnoses in women, and in turn may explain the worse outcomes,
particularly in younger women.[6],[7]
Accordingly, in the present study, it was noteworthy that percutaneous coronary
interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting were more frequently performed in men
than in women.Regarding outcomes, there were no significant differences between men and women. This
contrasts to other studies in which women had worse outcome after ACS, what has been
attributed, among other factors, to older age or the presence of more comorbidities in
women.[4],[8] On the other hand, similar short-term
outcomes in men and women have also been reported,[9] especially after adjustment for clinical differences and the
severity of angiographic disease.[10]
Gaui et al,[11] in an analysis of
Brazilian death certificates from 2004 to 2011, reported higher proportional mortality
due to acute ischemic heart disease in women from the Northeastern region, aged 40-49
years, than in men, despite overall lower proportional mortality. Globally, this
demonstrates that the outcomes of ACS in women are at least equivalent to those of men,
if not worse.The longstanding “knowledge gap” on CAD in women, both on the part of physicians and of
patients, has created inequalities in healthcare access and processes. However,
fortunately, our understanding of gender-specific differences in the initial
presentation, pathophysiology, treatment effectiveness, and clinical outcomes have
changed. The currently presented data are important to underscore the need to increase
knowledge about the importance of CAD in women, so that possible gender biases may be
effectively avoided, and better results obtained for the cardiovascular health of
women.
Authors: Jelena R Ghadri; Annahita Sarcon; Milosz Jaguszewski; Johanna Diekmann; Roxana D Bataiosu; Jens Hellermann; Adam Csordas; Lukas Baumann; Aline A Schöni; Thomas F Lüscher; Christian Templin Journal: J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.160
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Salim S Virani; Clifton W Callaway; Alanna M Chamberlain; Alexander R Chang; Susan Cheng; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Francesca N Delling; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; Jane F Ferguson; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Pamela L Lutsey; Jason S Mackey; David B Matchar; Kunihiro Matsushita; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Martin O'Flaherty; Latha P Palaniappan; Ambarish Pandey; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew D Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Uchechukwu K A Sampson; Gary M Satou; Svati H Shah; Nicole L Spartano; David L Tirschwell; Connie W Tsao; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephanie Poon; Shaun G Goodman; Raymond T Yan; Raffaele Bugiardini; Arlene S Bierman; Kim A Eagle; Nina Johnston; Thao Huynh; Francois R Grondin; Karin Schenck-Gustafsson; Andrew T Yan Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Rita F Redberg; Richard O Cannon; Noel Bairey Merz; Amir Lerman; Steven E Reis; David S Sheps Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeffrey S Berger; Laine Elliott; Dianne Gallup; Matthew Roe; Christopher B Granger; Paul W Armstrong; R John Simes; Harvey D White; Frans Van de Werf; Eric J Topol; Judith S Hochman; L Kristin Newby; Robert A Harrington; Robert M Califf; Richard C Becker; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nausheen Akhter; Sarah Milford-Beland; Matthew T Roe; Robert N Piana; John Kao; Adhir Shroff Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.749