Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33573665›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular diabetology2021

Gender differences in screening for glucose perturbations, cardiovascular risk factor management and prognosis in patients with dysglycaemia and coronary artery disease: results from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE surveys.

Giulia Ferrannini, Dirk De Bacquer, Pieter Vynckier, Guy De Backer, Viveca Gyberg, Kornelia Kotseva, Linda Mellbin, Anna Norhammar, Jaakko Tuomilehto, David Wood and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular diabetology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.

Giulia FerranniniCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine K2, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden. giulia.ferrannini@ki.se.ORCID 0000-0002-0318-7435
Dirk De BacquerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter VynckierDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Guy De BackerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Viveca GybergCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine K2, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kornelia KotsevaNational Institute for Prevention and Cardiovascular Health, National University of Ireland-Galway, University Road, Galway, H91 TK33, Republic of Ireland.
Linda MellbinCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine K2, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna NorhammarCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine K2, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jaakko TuomilehtoPublic Health Promotion Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Mannerheimintie 166, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
David WoodNational Institute for Prevention and Cardiovascular Health, National University of Ireland-Galway, University Road, Galway, H91 TK33, Republic of Ireland.
Lars RydénCardiology Unit, Department of Medicine K2, Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 17177, Stockholm, Sweden.
EUROASPIRE IV & V Investigators
Karolinska Institutet · SEGhent University · BEKarolinska University Hospital · SEOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGender disparities in the management of dysglycaemia, defined as either impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM), in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients are a medical challenge. Recent data from two nationwide cohorts of patients suggested no gender difference as regards the risk for diabetes-related CV complications but indicated the presence of a gender disparity in risk factor management. The aim of this study was to investigate gender differences in screening for dysglycaemia, cardiovascular risk factor management and prognosis in dysglycemic CAD patients.

methodsThe study population (n = 16,259; 4077 women) included 7998 patients from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE IV (EAIV: 2012-2013, 79 centres in 24 countries) and 8261 patients from the ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V (EAV: 2016-2017, 131 centres in 27 countries) cross-sectional surveys. In each centre, patients were investigated with standardised methods by centrally trained staff and those without known diabetes were offered an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The first of CV death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or revascularization served as endpoint. Median follow-up time was 1.7 years. The association between gender and time to the occurrence of the endpoint was evaluated using Cox survival modelling, adjusting for age.

resultsKnown diabetes was more common among women (32.9%) than men (28.4%, p < 0.0001). OGTT (n = 8655) disclosed IGT in 17.2% of women vs. 15.1% of men (p = 0.004) and diabetes in 13.4% of women vs. 14.6% of men (p = 0.078). In both known diabetes and newly detected dysglycaemia groups, women were older, with higher proportions of hypertension, dyslipidaemia and obesity. HbA1c was higher in women with known diabetes. Recommended targets of physical activity, blood pressure and cholesterol were achieved by significantly lower proportions of women than men. Women with known diabetes had higher risk for the endpoint than men (age-adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.04-1.43).

conclusionsGuideline-recommended risk factor control is poorer in dysglycemic women than men. This may contribute to the worse prognosis in CAD women with known diabetes.

Indexed as

Glucose Tolerance TestHealthcare DisparitiesAgedBiomarkersBlood GlucoseCoronary Artery DiseaseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EuropeFemaleGlucose IntoleranceGlycemic ControlHealth Care SurveysHeart Disease Risk FactorsHospitalizationHumansMaleBiomarkersBlood GlucoseCoronary artery diseaseDiabetesGenderImpaired glucose tolerancePrevention

Identifiers

PMID33573665
PMCPMC7879645
OpenAlexW3128100027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.