» Articles » PMID: 12020140

Sex Differences in Access to Coronary Revascularization After Cardiac Catheterization: Importance of Detailed Clinical Data

Overview
Journal Ann Intern Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2002 May 22
PMID 12020140
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Although some studies suggest that access to cardiac procedures may differ by sex, others have found no evidence of gender bias in cardiac care.

Objective: To study rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in men and women after cardiac catheterization.

Design: Cohort study with prospective data collection.

Setting: Alberta, Canada.

Patients: Persons undergoing cardiac catheterization between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1998 (n = 21 816).

Measurements: The occurrence of revascularization procedures (PCI or CABG) in the year after cardiac catheterization was measured. Unadjusted revascularization rates, partially adjusted rates (adjusted for clinical variables available in most databases, including administrative databases), and fully adjusted rates (additionally adjusted for extent of coronary artery disease and ejection fraction) were also evaluated.

Results: The unadjusted relative risk was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.71) for the end point of any revascularization in women relative to men. The relative risk increased to 0.69 (CI, 0.66 to 0.72) with partial adjustment and to 0.98 (CI, 0.94 to 1.03) with full adjustment, indicating equivalent access to revascularization for men and women. For PCI, the corresponding relative risks were 0.77 (CI, 0.73 to 0.82), 0.84 (CI, 0.80 to 0.89), and 1.02 (CI, 0.96 to 1.08). For CABG surgery, the relative risks were 0.54 (CI, 0.51 to 0.58), 0.51 (CI, 0.48 to 0.55), and 0.93 (CI, 0.87 to 1.01).

Conclusions: In Alberta, Canada, clinical variables fully explain sex differences in rates of revascularization after cardiac catheterization, and misleading conclusions would arise without full adjustment for clinical differences between men and women. Extreme caution is needed in interpreting reports on access to care that use sparsely detailed clinical data sources.

Citing Articles

[A retrospective mortality analysis of natural deaths of the 65+ generation based on postmortem autopsies performed at the Institute of Legal Medicine in Frankfurt am Main during two periods].

Wach A, Fassbender C, Ackermann H, Parzeller M Rechtsmedizin (Berl). 2021; 31(6):509-519.

PMID: 33716407 PMC: 7938877. DOI: 10.1007/s00194-021-00469-6.


Expanding the impact of a longstanding Canadian cardiac registry through data linkage: challenges and opportunities.

Southern D, James M, Wilton S, DeKoning L, Quan H, Knudtson M Int J Popul Data Sci. 2020; 3(3):441.

PMID: 32935018 PMC: 7299492. DOI: 10.23889/ijpds.v3i3.441.


Gender differences in clinical features and complications of infective endocarditis: 11-year experience of a single institute in Egypt.

Elamragy A, Meshaal M, Ali El-Kholy A, Rizk H Egypt Heart J. 2020; 72(1):5.

PMID: 31965410 PMC: 6974112. DOI: 10.1186/s43044-020-0039-6.


Gender differences in risk profile and outcome of Middle Eastern patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Jarrah M, Hammoudeh A, Al-Natour D, Khader Y, Tabbalat R, Alhaddad I Saudi Med J. 2017; 38(2):149-155.

PMID: 28133687 PMC: 5329626. DOI: 10.15537/smj.2017.2.16301.


Developments in the invasive diagnostic-therapeutic cascade of women and men with acute coronary syndromes from 2005 to 2011: a nationwide cohort study.

Hansen K, Soerensen R, Madsen M, Madsen J, Jensen J, von Kappelgaard L BMJ Open. 2015; 5(6):e007785.

PMID: 26063568 PMC: 4466619. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007785.