4.5 Article

Gender differences in coronary angiography, subsequent interventions, and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 191, Issue -, Pages 65-74

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.06.014

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The objective was to investigate whether gender disparities are found in referrals of patients with acute coronary syndromes to percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and, furthermore, to study gender differences in complications and mortality. Methods All consecutive coronary angiographies (CAs) and PCIs performed in Sweden and Iceland are prospectively registered in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. For the present analysis, data of patients with acute coronary syndromes, enrolled in 2007-2011, were used to analyze gender differences in revascularization, in-hospital complications, and 30-day mortality. Results A total of 106,881 CAs were performed during the study period. In patients with significant coronary artery disease, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for women to undergo PCI compared with men was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.99) and 0.81 (0.76-0.87) for referrals to CABG. In patients with 1-vessel disease, women were less likely to undergo PCI than men, but women with 2- or 3-vessel or left main stem disease were more likely to undergo PCI. All in-hospital complications after CA followed by PCI were more frequent among women (adjusted OR 1.58 [1.47-1.70]). There was no gender difference in adjusted 30-day mortality after PCI (1.02 [0.92-1.12]) and after CABG (0.97 [0.72-1.31]). Conclusions After CA showing 1-vessel disease, women as compared with men were less likely to undergo PCI. In the group with 2- or 3-vessel disease or left main stem stenosis, women were more likely to undergo PCI but less likely to undergo CABG. However, there was no gender difference in 30-day mortality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available