Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38628674›Full record

ReviewEuropean heart journal open2024

Management of cardiac emergencies in women: a clinical consensus statement of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC), the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the Heart Failure Association (HFA), and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, and the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy.

Antonia Sambola, Sigrun Halvorsen, David Adlam, Christian Hassager, Susanna Price, Giuseppe Rosano, Francois Schiele, Lene Holmvang, Marta de Riva, Amina Rakisheva and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European heart journal open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Spontaneous Coronary Dissection Review: A Complex Picture.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
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 11 institutions in 10 countries.

Antonia SambolaDepartment of Cardiology and Research Institute, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma, CIBER Cardiovascular diseases (CIBER-CV), Barcelona, Spain.
Sigrun HalvorsenDepartment of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital Ulleval, P.O. Box 4956 Nydalen, N-0424 Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7561-7644
David AdlamDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Christian HassagerDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1199-0981
Susanna PriceAdult Intensive Care Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6425-3360
Giuseppe RosanoCardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, St George's University Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4023-2263
Francois SchieleDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Besancon, Besancon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-6551
Lene HolmvangDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marta de RivaDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Amina RakishevaDepartment of Cardiology, City Cardiology Center, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Patrick SulzgruberDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5146-0099
Eva SwahnDepartment of Cardiology and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon · FRGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKazakh Institute of Oncology and Radiology · KZLeiden University Medical Center · NLLinköping University · SEMedical University of Vienna · ATOslo University Hospital · NOUniversità degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale · ITUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac emergencies in women, such as acute coronary syndromes, acute heart failure, and cardiac arrest, are associated with a high risk of adverse outcomes and mortality. Although women historically have been significantly underrepresented in clinical studies of these diseases, the guideline-recommended treatment for these emergencies is generally the same for both sexes. Still, women are less likely to receive evidence-based treatment compared to men. Furthermore, specific diseases affecting predominantly or exclusively women, such as spontaneous coronary dissection, myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and peripartum cardiomyopathy, require specialized attention in terms of both diagnosis and management. In this clinical consensus statement, we summarize current knowledge on therapeutic management of these emergencies in women. Key statements and specific quality indicators are suggested to achieve equal and specific care for both sexes. Finally, we discuss several gaps in evidence and encourage further studies designed and powered with adequate attention for sex-specific analysis.

Indexed as

Acute coronary syndromesAcute heart failureCardiac arrestCardiogenic shockSex differencesWomen

Identifiers

PMID38628674
PMCPMC11020263
OpenAlexW4392269208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.