Joseph A Ladapo1, John M Pfeifer2, James M Pitcavage2, Brent A Williams2, Alana A Choy-Shan3. 1. 1 Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California. 2. 2 Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania. 3. 3 Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular care sex differences are controversial. We examined sex differences in management and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing noninvasive testing for ischemic heart disease (IHD). Methods: In a rural integrated healthcare system, we identified adults age 40-79 without diagnosed IHD who underwent initial evaluation with a cardiac stress test with imaging or coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA), 2013-2014. We assessed sex differences in statin/aspirin therapy, revascularization, and adverse cardiovascular events. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association statin guidelines and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force aspirin guidelines were applied. Results: Among 2213 patients evaluated for IHD, median age was 57 years, 48.8% were women, and 9% had a positive stress test/CTA. Women were more likely to be missing lipid values than men (p < 0.001). Mean ASCVD risk score at baseline was 7.2% in women versus 12.4% in men (p < 0.001). There was no significant sex difference in statin therapy at baseline or 60-day follow-up. Women were less likely than men to be taking aspirin at baseline (adj. diff. = -8.5%; 95% CI, -4.2 to -12.9) and follow-up (adj. diff. = -7.7%; 95% CI, -3.3 to -12.1). There were no sex differences in revascularization after accounting for obstructive CAD or adverse cardiovascular outcomes during median follow-up of 33 months. Conclusion: In this contemporary cohort of patients with suspected IHD, women were less likely to receive lipid testing and aspirin therapy, but not statin therapy. Women did not experience worse outcomes. Sex differences in statin therapy reported by others may be due to inadequate accounting for baseline risk.
Background: Cardiovascular care sex differences are controversial. We examined sex differences in management and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing noninvasive testing for ischemic heart disease (IHD). Methods: In a rural integrated healthcare system, we identified adults age 40-79 without diagnosed IHD who underwent initial evaluation with a cardiac stress test with imaging or coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA), 2013-2014. We assessed sex differences in statin/aspirin therapy, revascularization, and adverse cardiovascular events. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association statin guidelines and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force aspirin guidelines were applied. Results: Among 2213 patients evaluated for IHD, median age was 57 years, 48.8% were women, and 9% had a positive stress test/CTA. Women were more likely to be missing lipid values than men (p < 0.001). Mean ASCVD risk score at baseline was 7.2% in women versus 12.4% in men (p < 0.001). There was no significant sex difference in statin therapy at baseline or 60-day follow-up. Women were less likely than men to be taking aspirin at baseline (adj. diff. = -8.5%; 95% CI, -4.2 to -12.9) and follow-up (adj. diff. = -7.7%; 95% CI, -3.3 to -12.1). There were no sex differences in revascularization after accounting for obstructive CAD or adverse cardiovascular outcomes during median follow-up of 33 months. Conclusion: In this contemporary cohort of patients with suspected IHD, women were less likely to receive lipid testing and aspirin therapy, but not statin therapy. Women did not experience worse outcomes. Sex differences in statin therapy reported by others may be due to inadequate accounting for baseline risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
aspirin; cardiac stress testing; disparities; sex differences; statins
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson; Karen M Eddleman; Nicole M Jarrett; Ken LaBresh; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Neha J Pagidipati; Kshipra Hemal; Adrian Coles; Daniel B Mark; Rowena J Dolor; Patricia A Pellikka; Udo Hoffmann; Sheldon E Litwin; James Udelson; Melissa A Daubert; Svati H Shah; Beth Martinez; Kerry L Lee; Pamela S Douglas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mark A Marinescu; Adrián I Löffler; Michelle Ouellette; Lavone Smith; Christopher M Kramer; Jamieson M Bourque Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-02
Authors: Joseph A Ladapo; Lee Herman; Bonnie H Weiner; Brian Rhees; Lon Castle; Mark Monane; John A McPherson Journal: Menopause Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Caroline Daly; Felicity Clemens; Jose L Lopez Sendon; Luigi Tavazzi; Eric Boersma; Nicholas Danchin; Francois Delahaye; Anselm Gitt; Desmond Julian; David Mulcahy; Witold Ruzyllo; Kristian Thygesen; Freek Verheugt; Kim M Fox Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-01-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Roberto Ferrari; Hélène Abergel; Ian Ford; Kim M Fox; Nicola Greenlaw; Ph Gabriel Steg; Dayi Hu; Michal Tendera; Jean-Claude Tardif Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2012-09-15 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Gbenga Ogedegbe; Nirav R Shah; Christopher Phillips; Keith Goldfeld; Jason Roy; Yu Guo; Joyce Gyamfi; Christopher Torgersen; Louis Capponi; Sripal Bangalore Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sae Takada; Allison J Ober; Judith S Currier; Noah J Goldstein; Tamara B Horwich; Brian S Mittman; Suzanne B Shu; Chi-Hong Tseng; Tara Vijayan; Soma Wali; William E Cunningham; Joseph A Ladapo Journal: Prog Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 8.194