4.2 Article

Sex-based differences in bleeding and long-term adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention in older patients with coronary artery disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 345-352

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/joic.12500

关键词

bleeding; older adults; percutaneous coronary intervention; sex-based differences

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC1301301]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81470486]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesDifferences in outcomes for women and men after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in older patients remain controversial. Herein, we compared 2-year outcomes by sex in Chinese older patients undergoing PCI. MethodsA total of 4926 consecutive patients (33.6% women, age 60 years, mean age 67.45.7 years) who underwent PCI at a single center in China from January 2013 to December 2013 were included in this study. The primary endpoint was 2-year risk of bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions. The secondary endpoints included 2-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Hazard ratios were generated using multivariable Cox regression. ResultsCompared with men, women had significantly higher rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality (0.8% vs 0.2%, P=0.001), cardiac death (0.5% vs 0.1%, P=0.006), MACCE (2.4% vs 1.5%, P=0.017), and bleeding (0.4% vs 0.1%, P=0.015). At 2-year follow up, there were no differences between men and women for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 1.8%, P=0.839) and 2-year MACCE (13.1% vs 11.8%, P=0.216). However, women had a higher risk of 2-year bleeding (9.2% vs 6.2%, P<0.001), which persisted after adjusting for baseline differences and treatment characteristics (hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.71; P=0.014). ConclusionWe found that older women undergoing PCI were at increased risk of 2-year bleeding compared with men. Further dedicated studies are needed to confirm these findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据