Gender-Based Issues in Interventional Cardiology: A Consensus Statement from the Women in Innovations (WIN) Initiative

San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Invasive Cardiology Unit, Milan, Italy.
EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.77). 02/2010; 5(7):773-9. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22327
Source: PubMed


Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in women, yet studies have suggested that it is often under-recognized. Of particular concern is the apparent suboptimal treatment of women in comparison to men, with less revascularisation and use of evidence-based medications. The Women in Innovations group of cardiologists aims to highlight these issues and change perceptions to optimize the treatment of female patients with CVD, to support future research, and to encourage and guide training of female interventional cardiologists.

Download full-text


Available from: Bonnie Weiner,
  • Source
    • "Constrictive chest pain with classical irradiation lasting more than 10 minutes is not the way symptoms always manifest. As shown in the article by Chieffo et al [14]. older women often only complain of the dyspnoea secondary to left ventricular failure, and many patients have pain limited to the jaw or the epigastrium and/or profuse vomiting and diaphoresis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This manuscript is focused around two key messages from the current Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology on ST elevation myocardial infarction; the need to use primary angioplasty whenever timely and effectively applicable and the importance of organisational changes in the emergency system to implement this indication. Based on a review of the trials motivating these guidelines and the successful experience of many European countries, practical indications are provided on the methods to overcome resistances and malpractices that prevent the delivery of optimal care in these critically ill patients.
    12/2012; 2012(2):36-42. DOI:10.5339/gcsp.2012.22

  • Journal of the American College of Surgeons 03/1999; 188(2). DOI:10.1016/S1072-7515(98)00285-3 · 5.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined angiographic and late-term clinical outcomes according to sex in recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials involving zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). Differences in outcome between men and women undergoing PCI have been inconsistently described with bare metal and first-generation drug-eluting stents. Clinical and angiographic outcomes among ZES-treated patients were evaluated by sex using propensity score modeling in a patient-level systematic overview of six trials and were also compared to patients receiving bare metal stents (BMS). Among 2,132 patients, 608 were female (28.5%). Compared to men, women were older and more frequently had diabetes, hypertension, and a smaller reference vessel diameter (P < 0.05 for all). For both sexes, the relative reductions in 8-month angiographic binary restenosis and late lumen loss were statistically significant and of similar extent with ZES compared to BMS. By 2 years, treatment with ZES resulted in significantly lower target vessel revascularization (TVR) and target vessel failure (TVF; 10.0% vs. 21.5%, P = 0.0003) among women that paralleled risk reductions for men. However, among ZES-treated patients, 2-year rates of TVR (8.2% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.005) and TVF (9.9% vs. 12.8%, P = 0.004) were significantly lower among women, although rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar. Despite greater baseline clinical and angiographic risk than men, women undergoing PCI with ZES compared to BMS experienced significant reductions in angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization yet similar safety. Among all patients treated with ZES, late-term safety and efficacy outcomes are similar, if not lower, among women compared to men.
    Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 11/2010; 76(6):804-13. DOI:10.1002/ccd.22624 · 2.11 Impact Factor
Show more