Advertisement

PCI Considerations in Women: Gender-Specific Outcomes and Challenges

  • Christopher J. Varughese
  • Rebecca Pinnelas
  • Jennifer Yu
  • Roxana Mehran
Chapter

Abstract

Despite major advancements in therapies aimed at reducing the dreaded complications of heart disease, cardiovascular disease still remains the leading cause of death among women accounting for more deaths than cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and pneumonia combined (Leading causes of death in females United States, 2007. [Webpage]. 2011; leading causes of death in females for 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/. Accessed 14 Apr 2012). Furthermore, differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome exist between men and women, but these differences are often difficult to quantify, partly due to an underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. As life expectancy increases, the prevalence of CAD among women will increase thereby necessitating a more thorough understanding of treatment differences between genders. Current advances in research and therapies show promise to elucidate the inherent gender differences and improve outcomes.

Keywords

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Acute Coronary Syndrome Major Adverse Cardiac Event Acute Coronary Syndrome Patient Target Vessel Revascularization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Lansky AJ, Hochman JS, Ward PA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention and adjunctive pharmacotherapy in women: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2005;111(7):940–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cowley MJ, Mullin SM, Kelsey SF, et al. Sex differences in early and long-term results of coronary angioplasty in the NHLBI PTCA Registry. Circulation. 1985;71(1):90–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kelsey SF, James M, Holubkov AL, Holubkov R, Cowley MJ, Detre KM. Results of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in women. 1985–1986 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Coronary Angioplasty Registry. Circulation. 1993;87(3):720–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elkoustaf RA, Mamkin I, Mather JF, et al. Comparison of results of percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris in men versus women. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(2):182–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heer T, Gitt AK, Juenger C, et al. Gender differences in acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(2):160–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heer T, Schiele R, Schneider S, et al. Gender differences in acute myocardial infarction in the era of reperfusion (the MITRA registry). Am J Cardiol. 2002;89(5):511–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suessenbacher A, Doerler J, Alber H, et al. Gender-related outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: data from the Austrian acute PCI registry. EuroIntervention. 2008;4(2):271–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berecki-Gisolf J, Humphreyes-Reid L, Wilson A, Dobson A. Angina symptoms are associated with mortality in older women with ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2009;120(23):2330–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akhter N, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, Piana RN, Kao J, Shroff A. Gender differences among patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). Am Heart J. 2009;157(1):141–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Al-Fiadh AH, Andrianopoulos N, Farouque O, et al. Contemporary outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes. Int J Cardiol. 2011;151(2):195–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Donoghue M, Boden WE, Braunwald E, et al. Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(1):71–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benamer H, Tafflet M, Bataille S, et al. Female gender is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after STEMI in the era of primary PCI: insights from the greater Paris area PCI Registry. EuroIntervention. 2011;6(9):1073–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawesson SS, Stenestrand U, Lagerqvist B, Wallentin L, Swahn E. Gender perspective on risk factors, coronary lesions and long-term outcome in young patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Heart. 2010;96(6):453–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Milner KA, Funk M, Richards S, Wilmes RM, Vaccarino V, Krumholz HM. Gender differences in symptom presentation associated with coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84(4):396–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Philpott S, Boynton PM, Feder G, Hemingway H. Gender differences in descriptions of angina symptoms and health problems immediately prior to angiography: the ACRE study. Appropriateness of Coronary Revascularisation study. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(10):1565–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsujita K, Nikolsky E, Lansky AJ, et al. Impact of anemia on clinical outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in relation to gender and adjunctive antithrombotic therapy (from the HORIZONS-AMI trial). Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(10):1385–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blum A, Blum N. Coronary artery disease: are men and women created equal? Gend Med. 2009;6(3):410–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Timoteo AT, Mota Carmo M, Ferreira RC. Carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaques improves prediction of obstructive angiographic coronary artery disease in women. Angiology. 2013;64(1):57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon JA, Hsia J, Cauley JA, et al. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of stroke: the Heart and Estrogen-progestin Replacement Study (HERS). Circulation. 2001;103(5):638–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, et al. Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women–2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(11):1243–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kennedy JW, Killip T, Fisher LD, Alderman EL, Gillespie MJ, Mock MB. The clinical spectrum of coronary artery disease and its surgical and medical management, 1974–1979. The Coronary Artery Surgery study. Circulation. 1982;66(5 Pt 2):III16–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xhyheri B, Bugiardini R. Diagnosis and treatment of heart disease: are women different from men? Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;53(3):227–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sullivan AK, Holdright DR, Wright CA, Sparrow JL, Cunningham D, Fox KM. Chest pain in women: clinical, investigative, and prognostic features. BMJ. 1994;308(6933):883–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for exercise testing: executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). Circulation. 1997;96(1):345–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kwok Y, Kim C, Grady D, Segal M, Redberg R. Meta-analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83(5):660–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lokhandwala JO, Skelding KA. Sex differences in percutaneous coronary interventions. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2009;2(3):300–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mieres JH, Shaw LJ, Arai A, et al. Role of noninvasive testing in the clinical evaluation of women with suspected coronary artery disease: Consensus statement from the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, American Heart Association. Circulation. 2005;111(5):682–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Plass A, et al. Accuracy of dual-source CT coronary angiography: first experience in a high pre-test probability population without heart rate control. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):2739–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mollet NR, Cademartiri F, van Mieghem CAG, et al. High-resolution spiral computed tomography coronary angiography in patients referred for diagnostic conventional coronary angiography. Circulation. 2005;112(15):2318–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Gevigney G, Mosnier S, Ecochard R, et al. Are women with acute myocardial infarction managed as well as men? Does it have consequences on in-hospital mortality? Analysis of an unselected cohort of 801 women and 1,718 men. Acta Cardiol. 2001;56(3):169–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Doyle F, De La Harpe D, McGee H, Shelley E, Conroy R. Gender differences in the presentation and management of acute coronary syndromes: a national sample of 1365 admissions. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2005;12(4):376–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Radovanovic D, Erne P, Urban P, Bertel O, Rickli H, Gaspoz JM. Gender differences in management and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes: results on 20,290 patients from the AMIS Plus Registry. Heart. 2007;93(11):1369–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Movahed MR, Ramaraj R, Jamal MM, Hashemzadeh M. Nationwide trends in the utilization of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MVPCI) in the United States across different gender and ethnicities. J Interv Cardiol. 2009;22(3):247–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Milcent C, Dormont B, Durand-Zaleski I, Steg PG. Gender differences in hospital mortality and use of percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: microsimulation analysis of the 1999 nationwide French hospitals database. Circulation. 2007;115(7):833–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee KH, Jeong MH, Ahn YK, et al. Gender differences of success rate of percutaneous coronary intervention and short term cardiac events in Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry. Int J Cardiol. 2008;130(2):227–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tavris D, Shoaibi A, Chen AY, Uchida T, Roe MT, Chen J. Gender differences in the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol. 2010;33(2):99–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Glaser R, Herrmann HC, Murphy SA, et al. Benefit of an early invasive management strategy in women with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2002;288(24):3124–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carrabba N, Santoro GM, Balzi D, et al. In-hospital management and outcome in women with acute myocardial infarction (data from the AMI-Florence Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2004;94(9):1118–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bufe A, Wolfertz J, Dinh W, et al. Gender-based differences in long-term outcome after ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19(3):471–5.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sadowski M, Gasior M, Gierlotka M, Janion M, Polonski L. Gender-related differences in mortality after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a large multicentre national registry. EuroIntervention. 2011;6(9):1068–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Glickman SW, Granger CB, Ou FS, et al. Impact of a statewide ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization program on treatment times for women, minorities, and the elderly. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3(5):514–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mosca L, Ferris A, Fabunmi R, Robertson RM. Tracking women’s awareness of heart disease: an American Heart Association national study. Circulation. 2004;109(5):573–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mosca L, Jones WK, King KB, et al. Awareness, perception, and knowledge of heart disease risk and prevention among women in the United States. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(6):506–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Takakuwa KM, Shofer FS, Limkakeng Jr AT, Hollander JE. Preferences for cardiac tests and procedures may partially explain sex but not race disparities. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(5):545–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mumma BE, Baumann BM, Diercks DB, et al. Sex bias in cardiovascular testing: the contribution of patient preference. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57(6):551–560 e554.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Taggu W, Lloyd G. Treating cardiovascular disease in women. Menopause Int. 2007;13(4):159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Allen JK, Scott LB, Stewart KJ, Young DR. Disparities in women’s referral to and enrollment in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(7):747–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mosca L, Linfante AH, Benjamin EJ, et al. National study of physician awareness and adherence to cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Circulation. 2005;111(4):499–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Singh M, Rihal CS, Gersh BJ, et al. Mortality differences between men and women after percutaneous coronary interventions. A 25-year, single-center experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(24):2313–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Singh IM, Holmes Jr DR. Myocardial revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention: past, present, and the future. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2011;36(10):375–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Duvernoy CS, Smith DE, Manohar P, et al. Gender differences in adverse outcomes after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: an analysis from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) percutaneous coronary intervention registry. Am Heart J. 2010;159(4):677–683 e671.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Berger JS, Sanborn TA, Sherman W, Brown DL. Influence of sex on in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2006;151(5):1026–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kovacic JC, Mehran R, Karajgikar R, et al. Female gender and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: results from a large registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80(4):514–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vakili BA, Kaplan RC, Brown DL. Sex-based differences in early mortality of patients undergoing primary angioplasty for first acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2001;104(25):3034–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Srinivas VS, Garg S, Negassa A, Bang JY, Monrad ES. Persistent sex difference in hospital outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the New York State reporting system. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007;19(6):265–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Roncalli J, Elbaz M, Dumonteil N, et al. Gender disparity in 48-hour mortality is limited to emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;103(5):293–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mehta RH, Montoye CK, Gallogly M, et al. Improving quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: the Guidelines Applied in Practice (GAP) Initiative. JAMA. 2002;287(10):1269–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jneid H, Fonarow GC, Cannon CP, et al. Sex differences in medical care and early death after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2008;118(25):2803–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cheng CI, Yeh KH, Chang HW, et al. Comparison of baseline characteristics, clinical features, angiographic results, and early outcomes in men vs women with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary intervention. Chest. 2004;126(1):47–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jacobs AK, Johnston JM, Haviland A, et al. Improved outcomes for women undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(10):1608–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    D’Ascenzo F, Gonella A, Quadri G, et al. Comparison of mortality rates in women versus men presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(5):651–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Dirschinger J, et al. Sex-based analysis of outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated predominantly with percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2002;287(2):210–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lansky AJ, Pietras C, Costa RA, et al. Gender differences in outcomes after primary angioplasty versus primary stenting with and without abciximab for acute myocardial infarction: results of the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) trial. Circulation. 2005;111(13):1611–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(8):496–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(8):489–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Savage MP, Fischman DL, Rake R, et al. Efficacy of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries. Stent Restenosis Study (STRESS) Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(2):307–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Abbott JD, Vlachos HA, Selzer F, et al. Gender-based outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(5):626–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Solinas E, Nikolsky E, Lansky AJ, et al. Gender-specific outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(22):2111–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Presbitero P, Belli G, Zavalloni D, et al. “Gender paradox” in outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel eluting stents. EuroIntervention. 2008;4(3):345–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Onuma Y, Kukreja N, Daemen J, et al. Impact of sex on 3-year outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention using bare-metal and drug-eluting stents in previously untreated coronary artery disease: insights from the RESEARCH (Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) and T-SEARCH (Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) Registries. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(7):603–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Brown RA, Williams M, Barker CM, et al. Sex-specific outcomes following revascularization with zotarolimus-eluting stents: comparison of angiographic and late-term clinical results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76(6):804–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mikhail GW. Coronary revascularisation in women. Heart. 2006;92 Suppl 3:iii19–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Bollwein H, et al. Gender and restenosis after coronary artery stenting. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(16):1523–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Chen Z, Qian J, Ma J, Ge L, Ge J. Effect of gender on repeated coronary artery revascularization after intra-coronary stenting: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2012;157(3):381–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lansky AJ, Ng VG, Mutlu H, et al. Gender-based evaluation of the XIENCE V™ everolimus-eluting coronary stent system. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74(5):719–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Funakoshi S, Furukawa Y, Ehara N, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of Japanese women undergoing coronary revascularization therapy. Circ J. 2011;75(6):1358–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mikhail GW, Gerber RT, Cox DA, et al. Influence of sex on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with the paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: results of the “TAXUS Woman” analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(12):1250–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jacobs AK. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents in women: a window of opportunity. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(7):611–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mehran R, Pocock S, Nikolsky E, et al. Impact of bleeding on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: results from a patient-level pooled analysis of the REPLACE-2 (randomized evaluation of PCI linking angiomax to reduced clinical events), ACUITY (acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy), and HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2011;4(6):654–64.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chiu JH, Bhatt DL, Ziada KM, et al. Impact of female sex on outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2004;148(6):998–1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Argulian E, Patel AD, Abramson JL, et al. Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(1):48–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Peterson ED, Lansky AJ, Kramer J, Anstrom K, Lanzilotta MJ. Effect of gender on the outcomes of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2001;88(4):359–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Thompson CA, Kaplan AV, Friedman BJ, et al. Gender-based differences of percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;67(1):25–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Poludasu S, Cavusoglu E, Clark LT, Marmur JD. Impact of gender on in-hospital percutaneous coronary interventional outcomes in African-Americans. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007;19(3):123–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chacko M, Lincoff AM, Wolski KE, et al. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes in women treated with bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis of the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial. Am Heart J. 2006;151(5):1032 e1031–1037.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Ahmed B, Piper WD, Malenka D, et al. Significantly improved vascular complications among women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Northern New England Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(5):423–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Applegate RJ, Sacrinty MT, Kutcher MA, et al. Vascular complications in women after catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention 1998–2005. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007;19(9):369–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011;377(9775):1409–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Pristipino C, Pelliccia F, Granatelli A, et al. Comparison of access-related bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99(9):1216–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bertrand OF, Rao SV, Pancholy S, et al. Transradial approach for coronary angiography and interventions: results of the first international transradial practice survey. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(10):1022–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Tizon-Marcos H, Bertrand OF, Rodes-Cabau J, et al. Impact of female gender and transradial coronary stenting with maximal antiplatelet therapy on bleeding and ischemic outcomes. Am Heart J. 2009;157(4):740–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Glaser R, Selzer F, Jacobs AK, et al. Effect of gender on prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(11):1446–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Iakovou I, Dangas G, Mehran R, et al. Impact of gender on the incidence and outcome of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2003;15(1):18–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Jackson EA, Moscucci M, Smith DE, et al. The association of sex with outcomes among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction in the contemporary era: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2). Am Heart J. 2011;161(1):106–112 e101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Mueller C, Buerkle G, Perruchoud AP, Buettner HJ. Female sex and risk of contrast nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Can J Cardiol. 2004;20(5):505–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, et al. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(7):1393–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Pedersen SS, Ong AT, Lemos PA, Erdman RA, Serruys PW, van Domburg RT. Risk factors for impaired health status differ in women and men treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61(1):11–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Mortensen OS, Bjorner JB, Newman B, et al. Gender differences in health-related quality of life following ST-elevation myocardial infarction: women and men do not benefit from primary percutaneous coronary intervention to the same degree. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2007;14(1):37–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation. 2007;116(7):e148–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(7):e1–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(19):e215–367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kumbhani DJ, Shishehbor MH, Willis JM, et al. Influence of gender on long-term mortality in patients presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(8):1087–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Clayton TC, Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, et al. Do men benefit more than women from an interventional strategy in patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction? The impact of gender in the RITA 3 trial. Eur Heart J. 2004;25(18):1641–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Lagerqvist B, Safstrom K, Stahle E, Wallentin L, Swahn E. Is early invasive treatment of unstable coronary artery disease equally effective for both women and men? FRISC II Study Group Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(1):41–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2008;117(2):296–329.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Berger PB, Ellis SG, Holmes DR, et al. Relationship between delay in performing direct coronary angioplasty and early clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction : results from the global use of strategies to open occluded arteries in acute coronary syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) trial. Circulation. 1999;100(1):14–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tamis-Holland JE, Palazzo A, Stebbins AL, et al. Benefits of direct angioplasty for women and men with acute myocardial infarction: results of the global use of strategies to open occluded arteries in acute coronary syndromes (GUSTO II-B) Angioplasty Substudy. Am Heart J. 2004;147(1):133–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Collins SD, Ahmad S, Waksman R. Percutaneous revascularization in women with coronary artery disease: we’ve come so far, yet have so far to go. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2010;20(6):436–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Reynolds HR, Farkouh ME, Lincoff AM, et al. Impact of female sex on death and bleeding after fibrinolytic treatment of myocardial infarction in GUSTO V. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2054–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Enriquez JR, Pratap P, Zbilut JP, Calvin JE, Volgman AS. Women tolerate drug therapy for coronary artery disease as well as men do, but are treated less frequently with aspirin, [beta]-blockers, or statins. Gend Med. 2008;5(1):53–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bugiardini R, Yan AT, Yan RT, et al. Factors influencing underutilization of evidence-based therapies in women. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(11):1337–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Blomkalns AL, Chen AY, Hochman JS, et al. Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large-scale observations from the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) National Quality Improvement Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(6):832–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Anand SS, Xie CC, Mehta S, et al. Differences in the management and prognosis of women and men who suffer from acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(10):1845–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Moriel M, Tzivoni D, Behar S, et al. Contemporary treatment and adherence to guidelines in women and men with acute coronary syndromes. Int J Cardiol. 2008;131(1):97–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Vittinghoff E, Shlipak MG, Varosy PD, et al. Risk factors and secondary prevention in women with heart disease: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(2):81–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Berger JS, Roncaglioni MC, Avanzini F, Pangrazzi I, Tognoni G, Brown DL. Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in women and men: a sex-specific meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295(3):306–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K, et al. Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women–2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(12):1404–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002;324(7329):71–86.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Shen H, Herzog W, Drolet M, et al. Aspirin resistance in healthy drug-naive men versus women (from the Heredity and Phenotype Intervention Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2009;104(4):606–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Becker DM, Segal J, Vaidya D, et al. Sex differences in platelet reactivity and response to low-dose aspirin therapy. JAMA. 2006;295(12):1420–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Berger JS, Bhatt DL, Cannon CP, et al. The relative efficacy and safety of clopidogrel in women and men a sex-specific collaborative meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(21):1935–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Mann JT, et al. Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2002;288(19):2411–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Montalescot G, Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, et al. Prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38): double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9665):723–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Sugidachi A, Ogawa T, Kurihara A, et al. The greater in vivo antiplatelet effects of prasugrel as compared to clopidogrel reflect more efficient generation of its active metabolite with similar antiplatelet activity to that of clopidogrel’s active metabolite. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5(7):1545–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2001–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, et al. Genetic variants in ABCB1 and CYP2C19 and cardiovascular outcomes after treatment with clopidogrel and prasugrel in the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial: a pharmacogenetic analysis. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1312–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC, et al. 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update). Circulation. 2009;120(22):2271–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(11):1045–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    AstraZeneca replies to the US FDA complete response letter for BRILINTA (Ticagrelor Tablets). 2011; Press Release. Available at: http://www.astrazeneca.com/Media/Press-releases/Article/20110121CRL-to-US-FDA-for-Brilinta (2012). Accessed 14 Apr 2012.
  131. 131.
    Mahaffey KW, Wojdyla DM, Carroll K, et al. Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel by geographic region in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Circulation. 2012;124(5):544–54.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Cannon CP, Harrington RA, James S, et al. Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study. Lancet. 2010;375(9711):283–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Cho L, Topol EJ, Balog C, et al. Clinical benefit of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade with abciximab is independent of gender: pooled analysis from EPIC, EPILOG and EPISTENT trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(2):381–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Alexander KP, Chen AY, Newby LK, et al. Sex differences in major bleeding with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Circulation. 2006;114(13):1380–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Boersma E, Harrington RA, Moliterno DJ, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of all major randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2002;359(9302):189–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Fernandes LS, Tcheng JE, O’Shea JC, et al. Is glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonism as effective in women as in men following percutaneous coronary intervention?: Lessons from the ESPRIT study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(6):1085–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Ebbinghaus J, Maier B, Schoeller R, Schuhlen H, Theres H, Behrens S. Routine early invasive strategy and in-hospital mortality in women with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction results from the Berlin Myocardial Infarction Registry (BMIR). Int J Cardiol. 2012;158(1):78–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Coons JC, Battistone S. 2007 guideline update for unstable angina/non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: focus on antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42(7):989–1001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Lansky AJ, Mehran R, Cristea E, et al. Impact of gender and antithrombin strategy on early and late clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (from the ACUITY trial). Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(9):1196–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Nakamura H, Arakawa K, Itakura H, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in Japan (MEGA Study): a prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9542):1155–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(21):2195–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Mizuno K, Nakaya N, Ohashi Y, et al. Usefulness of pravastatin in primary prevention of cardiovascular events in women. Circulation. 2008;117(4):494–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Taylor F, Ward K, Moore TH, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1, CD004816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Corbelli JA, Corbelli JC, Bullano MF, et al. Gender bias in lipid assessment and treatment following percutaneous coronary intervention. J Gend Specif Med. 2003;6(3):21–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Patti G, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, et al. Clinical benefit of statin pretreatment in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a collaborative patient-level meta-analysis of 13 randomized studies. Circulation. 2011;123(15):1622–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Brown PP, Mack MJ, Simon AW, et al. Outcomes experience with off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in women. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74(6):2113–9; discussion 2120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Mack MJ, Brown P, Houser F, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in a matched sample of women: a comparison of outcomes. Circulation. 2004;110(11 Suppl 1):II1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Leading causes of death in females United States, 2007. [Webpage]. 2011; leading causes of death in females for 2007. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/ (2012). Accessed 14 Apr 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Varughese
    • 1
  • Rebecca Pinnelas
    • 2
  • Jennifer Yu
    • 3
  • Roxana Mehran
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyThe Mount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Office of Interventional Cardiology ResearchMount Sinai Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyMount Sinai Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations