ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2017
Outcomes of Women and Men With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With and Without Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-Specific Differences in Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights from the TAILOR-PCI Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Trial
- Coronary Artery Disease in Women: Sex-Specific Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Article
- Sex and Gender-Based Differences in Outcomes of Cardiac Rehabilitation Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
- CYP2C19 Polymorphisms and Clinical Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Million Veteran Program.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Intersectionality of inequalities in revascularization and outcomes for acute coronary syndrome in England: nationwide linked cohort study.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Article
- Distal Radial Access and Women: Implications for Access Site Outcomes in Coronary Procedures.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Bridging Care Gaps for Older Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Interventional cardiology clinics · 2025Review
- Sex Disparities in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Gender differences in presentation, management, and outcomes among Egyptian patients with acute coronary syndrome: a single-centre registry.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Observational
- Gender, racial and ethnic disparities in acute coronary syndromes with coronary in-stent restenosis.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
- Review
- Risk Factors, Management, and Evolution after the First Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Real-World Study Comparing Cohorts of Women and Men in the TriNetX Network.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Observational
- Sex differences in the management and outcome of acute coronary syndrome-Still an issue of equal treatment?Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2023Review
- Review
- A retrospective analysis of gender among patients admitted to a clinical decision unit at risk for acute coronary syndrome.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Sex Differences in Clopidogrel Effects Among Young Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Role for Genetics?CJC open · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- Reply to Kielb et al. Untapped Potential for Female Patients? Comment on "Lucà et al. Update on Management of Cardiovascular Diseases in Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen hospitalized with a non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have worse clinical outcomes compared with men. An early invasive strategy with prompt coronary revascularization may mitigate sex differences in outcomes. However, few contemporary studies have evaluated whether clinical outcomes differ between women and men presenting with ACS treated with an early invasive strategy. METHODS AND
resultsA population-based cohort of hospitalized ACS patients who received prompt cardiac catheterization from 2008 to 2011 in Ontario, Canada and followed for up to 2 years was studied. Clinical outcomes were compared between men and women, stratified by the use of coronary revascularization. Inverse probability weighting using the propensity score accounted for measured differences in baseline characteristics between men and women. Among the 23 473 ACS patients who received cardiac catheterization during an index hospitalization, 66.1% of men and 51.8% of women received coronary revascularization during the same hospitalization. In the propensity-weighted cohort of patients who received coronary revascularization, the 1-year rate of death or recurrent ACS was 10.6% for men (referent) compared with 13.1% for women (hazard ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.16-1.33). In contrast, outcomes for patients who did not receive coronary revascularization did not differ significantly between women and men at 1 year (17.8% versus 16.9%; hazard ratio 1.06; 95% CI 0.99-1.14) or at longer follow-up.
conclusionsAn increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes was observed for women with ACS undergoing an early invasive strategy and coronary revascularization compared with men.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.