Gender Bias in Acute Coronary Syndromes
The major aim of this review was to ascertain whether effective evidence-based treatments for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are underutilized in women in various geographic areas compared with men. The focus of our review was the relative use of effective treatments in patients with coronary angiographic evidence of obstructive coronary disease, defined as a lumen stenosis >50% of the adjacent non-diseased arterial diameter. We searched MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database between January 1998 and May 2008. Only a few of the published clinical registries on ACS provide data on treatments dichotomized by confirmed coronary angiographic disease. Consequently, we also accessed individual patient-level data from 3 established ACS registries: the Finnish TACOS (Tampere Acute COronary Syndrome), the British EMMACE 2 (Evaluation of Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events) and the Argentine PACS-ITALSIA (Prognosis in Acute Coronary Syndromes and the ITALian hospital Sindrome Isquemico Agudo). Despite presenting with higher risk characteristics and having higher in-hospital and 6 months risk of death, women with ACS and obstructive coronary artery disease were apparently treated less aggressively with secondary preventive drugs than were men, being less likely to receive aspirin, beta-blockers and statins at discharge. Overall, coronary revascularization appears to be performed in a similar proportion of women and men - once angiography has been performed and the coronary anatomy is known. However, substantial geographic variation exists in the relative rate of coronary angiography in men and women. In United Kingdom coronary revascularization tends to be done less frequently in women. Our study, therefore, demonstrates a gender bias in the delivery of secondary drug treatments for ACS, even for patients with documented significant coronary disease.
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: 01 March 2010
More about this publication?
- Vascular disease is the commonest cause of death in Westernized countries and its incidence is on the increase in developing countries. It follows that considerable research is directed at establishing effective treatment for acute vascular events. Long-term treatment has also received considerable attention (e.g. for symptomatic relief). Furthermore, effective prevention, whether primary or secondary, is backed by the findings of several landmark trials.
Vascular disease is a complex field with primary care physicians and nurse practitioners as well as several specialties involved. The latter include cardiology, vascular and cardio thoracic surgery, general medicine, radiology, clinical pharmacology and neurology (stroke units). Current Vascular Pharmacology will publish reviews to update all those concerned with the treatment of vascular disease. For example, reviews commenting on recently published trials or new drugs will be included. In addition to clinically relevant topics we will consider 'research-based' reviews dealing with future developments and potential drug targets. Therefore, another function of Current Vascular Pharmacology is to bridge the gap between clinical practice and ongoing research.
Debates will also be encouraged in the correspondence section of this journal.