ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Sex differences in guideline-based statin utilization and recurrent events in patients with known coronary artery disease.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative statin use and postoperative mortality in cardiac surgery patients: a retrospective cohort study of the MIMIC-IV database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Lowering barriers Not the bar: Redefining the role of American Journal of Preventive Cardiology in the next era.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Targeting the heart-immune axis after myocardial infarction: from inflammation to immunomodulation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current guidelines recommend using high-intensity statins in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Guideline directed statin intensity (GDSI) implementation and ASCVD outcomes may differ by sex. We evaluated sex-based differences in GDSI use and recurrent ASCVD outcomes in a large healthcare network. Methods: Using electronic medical records, we assessed statin use and intensity in a cohort of patients with established coronary artery disease (coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention) between 2010-2022. Statins were categorized into GDSI (high intensity), <GDSI (moderate or low intensity) or no statin use. Outcomes of interest included recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA and all-cause mortality. Incident rates (IR) and Cox regression hazard ratios (HR) of ASCVD outcomes were calculated across statin categories, stratified by sex. Results: We amassed data from 45,949 patients, of which 31 % were women. Women had more diabetes (29 % vs 24 %) and higher low density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] (94.9 ± 40.8 vs 87.6 ± 37.1 mg/dL) than men. During a follow-up period of ∼5 years, women were less likely to be started on GDSI (61.6 % vs 65.8 %, p<0.01) and achieve LDL-C<70mg/dL (41 % vs and 49 %, p<0.01) as compared to men. GDSI use lowered IRs for all outcomes in both sexes Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of patients with coronary artery disease, women were less likely to be prescribed GDSI than men and less likely to achieve guideline concordant LDL-C<70mg/dL. This was associated with a higher risk of recurrent ASCVD events in women as compared to men. More sex specific interventions are needed to ensure adequate preventive treatment for 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.