4.4 Review

Myocardial Ischemia in Women: Lessons From the NHLBI WISE Study

Journal

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 141-148

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/clc.21966

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HV-68161, N01-HV-68162, N01-HV-68163, N01-HV-68164, R01 HL090957-01A1]
  2. National Institute on Aging [U0164829, U01 HL649141, U01 HL649241, T32HL69751, R03 AG032631-01]
  3. GCRC from the National Center for Research Resources [MO1-RR00425]
  4. Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation, Danville, New Jersey
  5. Women's Guild of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
  6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
  7. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death for women. For almost 3 decades, more women than men have died from CVD, with the most recent annual statistics on mortality reporting that CVD accounted for 421 918 deaths among women in the United States. Although there have been significant declines in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality for females, these reductions lag behind those seen in men. In addition, where there has been a decrease in mortality from CHD across all age groups over time in men, in the youngest women (age <55 years) there has been a notable increase in mortality from CHD. There are differences in the prevalence, symptoms, and pathophysiology of myocardial ischemia that occurs in women compared with men. In this paper, we review the pathophysiology and mechanisms of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in women, particularly focusing on what we have learned from the WISE study. We examine the sex-specific issues related to myocardial ischemia in women in terms of prevalence and prognosis, traditional and novel risk factors, diagnostic testing, as well as therapeutic management strategies for IHD. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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