4.4 Article

Influence of Gender on Long-Term Mortality in Patients Presenting With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 109, Issue 8, Pages 1087-1091

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.11.044

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although an invasive strategy has predominately been studied in men with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs), its role in low-risk women is unclear. We sought to examine gender differences in a real-world registry of patients with NSTE-ACS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio from 2003 through 2007 (n = 1,874) were included. In-hospital and long-term mortalities were assessed. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to study the influence of gender on mortality. Interactions with age and biomarker status were examined. Women were older and had a higher incidence of co-morbid conditions compared to men. They had a smaller reference vessel diameter compared to men. Despite these characteristics there was no overall difference in in-hospital (1.4% vs 1.6%) or long-term (14.6% vs 15.8%) mortality between men and women. However, there was evidence of a significant effect modification by age (p = 0.012) and troponin status (p = 0.0073) for long-term mortality such that women <60 years of age, especially those who were troponin negative, had more than a twofold increase in long-term mortality compared to men (p = 0.007). In conclusion, although overall mortality rates are similar between men and women undergoing PCI for NSTE-ACS, women <60 years old with negative biomarkers have a higher mortality than their men peers. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2012;109:1087-1091)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available