ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Specificities of Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure in Women.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of incident heart failure in men and women with a history of myocardial infarction.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Time-Trends in Case-Fatality After Acute Myocardial Infarction Among Middle-Aged Lithuanian Adults, 2000-2023: Data from the Population-Based Kaunas Ischemic Heart Disease Register.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Key Steps in Murine Cardiac Engineering Validation: How Does It Affect the Efficiency of Cardiac Devices?BioMed research international · 2026Review
- Gender Disparities in Ischemic Heart Disease Management: Underdiagnosis in Women and Differences in Treatment.Cureus · 2025Review
- Sex-dependent Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Considerations in Right Heart Disease.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Substantial evidence from previous clinical studies, randomized trials, and patient registries confirms the existence of significant differences in cardiac morphology, pathophysiology, prevalence of specific coronary artery disease (CAD), and clinical course of myocardial infarction (MI) between men and women. The aim of this review is to investigate the impact of sex or gender on the development and clinical course of MI, the mechanisms and features of left ventricular (LV) remodeling, and heart failure (HF). The main sex-related difference in post-MI LV remodeling is adverse LV dilatation in males versus concentric LV remodeling or concentric LV hypertrophy in females. In addition, women have a higher incidence of microvascular dysfunction, which manifests as impaired coronary flow reserve, distal embolism, and a higher prevalence of the no-reflow phenomenon. Consequently, impaired myocardial perfusion after MI is more common in women than in men. Regardless of age or other comorbidities, the incidence of reinfarction, hospitalization for HF, and mortality is significantly higher in females. There is therefore a "sex paradox": despite the lower prevalence of obstructive CAD and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), women have a higher mortality rate after MI. Different characteristics of the coronary network, such as plaque formation, microvascular dysfunction, and endothelial inflammation, as well as the prolonged time to optimal coronary flow restoration, secondary mitral regurgitation, and pulmonary vascular dysfunction, lead to a worse outcome in females. A better understanding of the mechanisms responsible for MI occurrence, LV remodeling, and HF in men and women would contribute to optimized patient therapy that would benefit both sexes.
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.