 |
|
Sex Differences in Outcomes After Cardiac Catheterization
Effect Modification by Treatment Strategy and Time
Kathryn M. King, RN, PhD;
William A. Ghali, MD, MPH;
Peter D. Faris, PhD;
Michael J. Curtis, MD;
P. Diane Galbraith, RN, BN;
Michelle M. Graham, MD;
Merril L. Knudtson, MD
JAMA. 2004;291:1220-1225.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Studies comparing outcomes of cardiac care in women vs men yield various results, with some suggesting worse outcomes for women and others suggesting equivalent outcomes.
Objective To determine whether extent of coronary disease, treatment strategy, and follow-up time influence the risk of death in women vs men among patients who have had cardiac catheterization.
Design, Setting, and Patients We studied a large inception cohort by using detailed clinical data from a registry of 37 401 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Alberta, Canada, from 1995-2000, with follow-up through December 31, 2001.
Main Outcome Measures The risk of death for women vs men was assessed for all patients combined and then in analyses stratified by degree of coronary anatomic risk and by treatment strategy (no revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery). The latter analysis included a graphic assessment of the changing relative risk over time for women vs men.
Results Women had higher 1-year mortality than men did (5.6% vs 4.6%; P<.001). However, stratified analyses demonstrated that sex differences in risk occurred only early after catheterization and were most apparent among patients undergoing revascularization. The early risk-adjusted relative risks for women vs men were elevated at 3.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-6.24) for CABG surgery and 2.38 (95% CI, 1.48-3.83) for PCI on day 1 after catheterization, with a subsequent decrease in relative risk over time to equivalence in risk between sexes before 1 year.
Conclusions Sex-based differences in death rates after cardiac catheterization are time- and treatment-specific. This finding may at least partially explain the discrepancies in results from earlier studies on sex differences in outcomes of cardiac care.
INTRODUCTION
Sex differences in cardiac care and outcomes have been widely investigated since Steingart et al1 stimulated clinicians to consider sex-based biases in care practices. Investigators have examined sex differences in access to cardiac procedures and outcomes after myocardial infarction (MI) or the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD).2-18 Many studies have suggested that women have less access to care or poorer outcomes,2-9 whereas others have concluded that there are few or no differences10-17 or, under particular circumstances, that women fare better than men.16 After more than a decade of investigation, however, consistent findings are wanting, perhaps because of unavailability of detailed clinical data, variability of patient samples, and variability of follow-up times.
The Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) is a database containing detailed clinical data for all residents of Alberta, Canada, who undergo cardiac catheterization in the province.19 This database represents a resource for cardiovascular outcomes research and has recently been used to study sex differences in access to coronary revascularization.11
In this study, we extend that recent work to study sex differences in survival after cardiac catheterization. We assessed survival outcomes for all women vs men and then made outcome comparisons stratified for degree of coronary anatomic risk and mode of treatment after catheterization (no revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery). We also conducted a detailed analysis of time as a potential modifier of the risk of death for women vs men.
METHODS
Data Source and Variables
Patients in APPROACH were followed up longitudinally for assessment of long-term outcomes after cardiac catheterization. Clinical risk variables recorded at cardiac catheterization included sex, age, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, elevated creatinine level ( 2.26 mg/dL [200 µmol/L), dialysis status, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, liver or gastrointestinal disease, malignancy or metastatic disease, previous MI, previous PCI, previous CABG surgery, previous thrombolytic therapy for MI, and smoking status (categorized as "never," "former," or "current"). The indication for catheterization was recorded in 1 of 4 categories: MI within 8 weeks of catheterization, stable angina, unstable angina, or other (eg, arrhythmias). Extent of coronary disease was recorded and used to derive the weighted Duke Index and Duke Myocardial Jeopardy Score.20-23 Left ventricular ejection fraction was graded into 5 categories: less than 30%, 30% to 50%, more than 50%, ventriculogram not done (usually because of renal insufficiency or severely depressed cardiac function), and information missing. The occurrence of revascularization procedures after catheterization was also systematically recorded.
The outcome of interest for this study, all-cause mortality, was ascertained through semiannual linkage to records from the Alberta Bureau of Vital Statistics. We analyzed data from patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in 1995 through 2000, with follow-up of patients through December 31, 2001. The APPROACH study protocol was approved by the ethics review boards of the Universities of Calgary and Alberta. The requirement for informed consent was waived.
Analysis
We used  2 and 2-sample t tests to compare the clinical characteristics of men and women. The distributions for age of women and men met assumptions of normality and equal variances. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests to compare unadjusted survival of women vs men for 1 year after catheterization. We also compared unadjusted survival of women vs men, stratified by coronary anatomic risk, with patients categorized into high risk (left main coronary artery stenosis, 3-vessel disease, or 2-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending involvement) and low risk (other 2-vessel disease, 1-vessel disease, lesions with <50% stenosis, and normal) anatomy groups.
For our analysis stratified by initial treatment strategy, we grouped patients according to first revascularization treatment received within a year of catheterization: PCI, CABG, or no revascularization. We focused only on the first revascularization procedure after catheterization because that is the procedure most likely linked to the results of coronary angiography.
We used Cox proportional hazards models to model survival but found that, regardless of treatment modality, the effect of sex violated the proportional hazards assumption because the risk of events in women vs men changed over time (traditional proportional hazards models assume that this relative risk is fixed). This finding led us to confine our analysis of outcomes by sex over time to the graphic examination of relative risks estimated by plotting splines through residuals from Cox models that excluded the sex variable. For these graphic methods, we relied on restricted cubic splines plotted through rescaled Schoenfeld residuals.24-25
We also used logistic regression to examine the association between sex and outcomes at 30 days and 1 year while controlling for severity of illness. All potential risk variables were retained in the models regardless of statistical significance because our objective was to focus primarily on the odds ratios (ORs) for patient sex while controlling for all other potential confounders. Analyses were stratified by treatment group (no revascularization, PCI, CABG surgery) and coronary anatomy (low risk, high risk). We also performed a modified propensity analysis for which we modeled propensity (ie, likelihood) to be selected to CABG surgery or PCI (2 propensity models) and then assessed the OR for death in women vs men across tertiles of propensity. All analyses were performed with S-Plus (version 6.1 for Windows; Insightful Corp, Seattle, Wash). The level of significance used for tests was .05.
RESULTS
Of 37 401 patients studied, 11 199 were women. Women were significantly older than men and had more comorbid conditions, including congestive heart failure, chronic lung disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, liver disease, and malignancy (Table 1). Women were less likely to have had an MI or to have had cardiac interventions. Women tended to have a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, and their coronary anatomy was generally of lower risk than was that of men. Correspondingly, women had lower median weighted Duke Index values23 and were less likely than men to have revascularization procedures after catheterization.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics for Women and Men
|
|
|
Women had higher 1-year mortality than men (626/11 199 [5.6%] vs 1203/26 202 [4.6%]; P<.001). The unadjusted survival curves (Figure 1) for all patients revealed a higher mortality in women vs men during 1 year after cardiac catheterization (21 = 17.3, P<.001). Particularly in the early postcardiac catheterization period, there was a significant decline in survival among women compared with men.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Unadjusted Survival Curves of Women vs Men After Cardiac Catheterization and Stratified by Anatomic Risk
High risk includes left main coronary artery stenosis, 3-vessel disease, or 2-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending involvement and low risk includes other 2-vessel disease, 1-vessel disease, lesions with <50% stenosis, and normal anatomy groups.
|
|
|
Analysis Stratified by Anatomic Risk
The unadjusted survival curves for patients with low-risk coronary anatomy suggested little difference between low-risk women and men in survival rates after cardiac catheterization (21 = 3.4; P = .06; Figure 1). In contrast, the curves for patients with high-risk coronary anatomy revealed that women had poorer survival early after cardiac catheterization, followed by similar death rates beyond approximately 40 days once the period of early risk had ended (21 = 83.2; P<.001).
Analysis Stratified by Revascularization Treatment Group
To further investigate the early mortality risk in women with high-risk anatomy, we stratified patients by treatment group (no revascularization, PCI, CABG surgery). For PCI and CABG surgery treatment groups, there was a markedly increased early risk for mortality for women vs men (Figure 2). For the CABG surgery group, the adjusted relative risk for mortality for women vs men was 3.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-6.24) on day 1 after catheterization. The risk for women subsequently decreased to a level equivalent to that for men (ie, relative risk of 1.0) at 157 days. A similar pattern was seen in patients who underwent PCI: the relative risk was 2.38 (95% CI, 1.48-3.83) on day 1 after catheterization and dropped to 1.0 at 342 days. The risk profiles of women and men in the "no revascularization" group did not follow this pattern; the relative risk of mortality in women vs men remained similar and near 1.0 throughout follow-up.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Risk-Adjusted Hazard Ratios for Women vs Men, Plotted Against Time and Stratified by Treatment After Cardiac Catheterization
The hazard ratios are adjusted for all of the clinical risk factors listed in Table 1. The dashed lines indicate 95% confidence intervals.
|
|
|
These findings of changing relative risks over time were confirmed by logistic regression analyses of mortality at 2 points (Table 2). For patients who did not undergo revascularization, there were more modest, statistically insignificant sex differences in odds of mortality.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Risk-Adjusted Odds Ratios for Mortality at 30 Days and 1 Year for Women Relative to Men, Categorized by Treatment Received and Anatomic Risk*
|
|
|
For the analyses shown in Figure 2 and Table 2, we intentionally used time of catheterization as a common "time zero" across treatment groups. For the PCI group, this analysis accurately reflects time of actual treatment, given the short median waiting time of 1 day for PCI. For CABG surgery, the median wait was 22 days. As a result, the early hazard seen immediately after catheterization was based on data from some patients who had their CABG immediately after catheterization but also on data for others who had not yet undergone CABG. Therefore, we performed sensitivity analyses for which plots were replicated by using the time of revascularization (PCI or CABG surgery) as time zero. These sensitivity analyses revealed an almost identical picture of elevated early hazard in women vs men. The only difference with the main analyses presented in Figure 2 is that the hazard ratio for the CABG surgery group decreased to 1.0 at approximately 125 days rather than 157 days.
Disentangling Procedural Risk From Anatomic Risk
To distinguish whether the revascularization procedures themselves imparted higher early risk to women as opposed to high-risk coronary anatomy, which revascularized patients tend to have, we performed an additional stratified logistic regression analysis with separate analyses for high-risk and low-risk anatomy patients in each of the treatment groups (Table 2). The early risk among nonrevascularized high-risk women is less pronounced than the early risks in the PCI and CABG surgery analyses. For nonrevascularized women with low-risk anatomy, the odds for mortality were similar to that for men at 30 days and 1 year (Table 2).
The results of the analyses stratified by propensity to undergo PCI or CABG surgery essentially replicate the results in Table 2. The propensity analysis revealed that the risk for women vs men is highest when propensity (ie, likelihood) to be revascularized is high. This finding is most notable for those who actually were revascularized but is also present to some extent in the "no revascularization" group. The similarity between the analyses stratified by propensity and by anatomic risk (Table 2) is expected, given that the strongest driver of propensity to undergo a revascularization procedure is having high-risk anatomy.
We explored potential interaction effects between sex and other variables such as age and comorbidities but did not find any other clinically or statistically notable interactions.
COMMENT
Our study extends current understanding of sex differences in outcomes after cardiac catheterization by identifying a close link between anatomic risk, treatment modality, and time in mortality outcomes. We prospectively investigated sex differences in survival after cardiac catheterization in a large (n = 37 401) unselected cohort of patients. Many previous studies on sex differences in outcomes used data from single centers or hospital discharge data, relied on short follow-up times, focused only on specific patient groups, or used relatively small samples.2, 14, 16, 18 Many of these earlier studies thus provide a limited and inconsistent view, with some reporting that women are at similar or even lower risk than men after treatment for unstable angina2 or after PCI12 or CABG surgery.14, 16
Malenka et al7 argued that a reason for the lack of consistency in the findings across studies is that many were single-center studies that were too small to find differences. Using a larger regional sample of patients undergoing PCI (n = 13 061 procedures), they found that women treated with PCI had higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after adjustment for relevant clinical factors.7 Vaccarino et al,6 also studying a large sample of patients (n = 384 878) after MI, reported an increase in risk for women vs men, most notably in an unadjusted analysis (in-hospital mortality 16.7% for women vs 11.5% for men) but also after adjustment for clinical severity. Subsequent work by this same group8-9 revealed a similarly higher risk of in-hospital mortality for women vs men after PCI and CABG surgery. Interestingly, each of these studies focusing on short-term outcomes6, 8-9 also revealed that it is particularly younger women who are at high risk relative to men and that the risk difference between sexes decreases with increasing age. We did not find any such evidence of an interaction effect between age and sex, perhaps because we were studying longer-term outcomes for a broad spectrum of patients.
Our findings provide a potential explanation for the variability in findings across studies. Outcomes for women vs men appear to be time-sensitive and procedure-specific, so studies investigating only short-term outcomes in specific clinical or treatment subgroups will tend to have different findings than studies investigating longer-term outcomes in other patient subgroups. Our results suggest that studies focusing on short-term outcomes after CABG surgery will tend to find large differences in outcomes by sex, whereas a study focusing on longer-term outcomes in medically treated patients will perhaps find more modest sex differences.
We need to learn more about what places women at early risk when they undergo revascularization after cardiac catheterization. Our data allow us to describe these epidemiologic phenomena, but the APPROACH registry does not permit us to identify underlying mechanisms. Although existing data demonstrate potentially important sex differences in cardiac anatomy,26 women may also have some as-yet unidentified physiologic risk factor or combinations (interactions) of anatomic and physiologic risk factors.
Our findings of notable sex differences in outcomes early after PCI and CABG surgery suggest that it is particularly in these areas that sex-based technologic differences need to be investigated. We propose that special attention be paid to early physiologic factors (eg, mediators of thrombosis for women), technologic factors (eg, investigational technologies, PCI and CABG surgery techniques/equipment tailored for women), and recovery variables that may clarify women's risk profiles. Moreover, we need to continue to investigate caregiver decision making for women vs men.
Our study has some limitations. First, it was limited to patients who have had cardiac catheterization and thus does not account for the outcomes of women who are not referred for this procedure. We cannot determine whether the worse outcomes noted early after revascularization for women were due to the procedures themselves or to the greater incidence of comorbidities in women brought to the catheterization laboratory. Second, there could have been different medication use between sexes in the year after catheterization that could explain some of our findings. However, this explanation is relatively unlikely because a recent study of pharmacotherapy after MI in Calgary, Alberta,27 revealed that medication therapy early after MI did not differ between sexes. Third, we focused only on all-cause mortality as the outcome because it is most readily and reliably captured in APPROACH and has been widely studied by others and because our mortality analyses reveal intriguing findings on early risk differences by sex. Fourth, our method for ascertaining mortality (using data from the Bureau of Vital Statistics) leaves the possibility of missing patients who had a catheterization procedure but then moved out of the province. We anticipate, however, that such unmeasured loss to follow-up is negligible because only Alberta residents' data were used in these analyses and because Alberta is in a trend of remarkable inward (rather than outward) migration. Furthermore, it would generally be atypical for someone to decide to leave Alberta soon after catheterization while in the midst of a CAD evaluation. A final caveat is that we focused on outcomes within the first year after catheterization because we had complete ascertainment of survival to 1 year and because we believed that the most notable finding was the markedly elevated hazard early after catheterization. In sensitivity analyses extending to 7 years, the risk for women vs men remained generally stable and in fact drifted downward to a level slightly below that for men but with wide confidence intervals that included equivalence of risk by sex.
Despite these limitations, our study extends current understanding of sex-based differences in cardiac outcomes by demonstrating their time- and treatment-sensitive nature, a finding that may at least partially explain the discrepancy in results from earlier studies. Given that the mechanisms underlying our findings are not explained, we propose a research agenda in search of explanations for the sex-based outcome differences that we have demonstrated. Such work will represent a crucial first step toward therapeutic solutions.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
| |
Corresponding Author: Kathryn M. King, RN, PhD, Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N (kingk{at}ucalgary.ca).
Author Contributions: Drs King, Ghali, and Faris had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: King, Ghali, Curtis, Graham.
Acquisition of data: Curtis, Galbraith, Graham.
Analysis and interpretation of data: King, Ghali, Faris, Curtis, Galbraith, Knudtson.
Drafting of the manuscript: King, Faris, Ghali.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: King, Ghali, Faris, Curtis, Galbraith, Graham, Knudtson.
Statistical expertise: Ghali, Faris.
Obtained funding: Ghali, Knudtson, Galbraith.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Ghali, Curtis, Galbraith, Knudtson.
APPROACH Clinical Steering Committee: William Hui, MD (chair); Stephen Archer, MD; Micheal Curtis, MD; William A. Ghali, MD, MPH; Michelle Graham, MD; Merril L. Knudtson, MD; Arvind Koshal, MD; Andrew Maitland, MB; L. Brent Mitchell, MD; and Ross Tsuyuki, PharmD, MSc.
Funding/Support: APPROACH was initially funded with a grant from the W. Garfield Weston Foundation. The ongoing operation of this project has been made possible by operating grants from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Alberta, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The initiative also has received contributions from Alberta Health and Wellness, Merck Frosst Canada Inc, Monsanto Canada Inc–Searle, Eli Lilly Canada Inc, Guidant Corporation, Boston Scientific Ltd, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, and Johnson & Johnson Inc–Cordis. Dr King holds a Population Health Investigator Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. Dr Ghali is supported by a Government of Canada Research Chair in Health Services Research and by a Health Scholar Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Edmonton, Alberta. Ms Galbraith is supported by a Canadian Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Team student fellowship, funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and a TORCH (Tomorrow's Research Cardiovascular Health Professionals) student fellowship. Dr Knudtson receives partial support from the Libin Trust Fund.
Role of the Sponsors: The listed funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Acknowledgment: We appreciate the assistance of the Calgary Health Region and the Capital Health Authority for supporting online data entry. We gratefully acknowledge the personnel in the cardiac catheterization laboratories for their diligence in data collection and entry: Holy Cross Hospital, Foothills Medical Center, Royal Alexandra Hospital, and the University of Alberta Hospital.
Author Affiliations: Faculty of Nursing (Dr King), Department of Medicine (Drs Ghali, Curtis, and Knudtson and Ms Galbraith), Department of Community Health Sciences (Drs King and Ghali), Centre for Health and Policy Studies (Dr Faris), University of Calgary, and Department of Medicine, University of Alberta (Dr Graham), Calgary.
REFERENCES
1. Steingart RM, Packer M, Hamm P, et al. Sex differences in the management of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:226-230.
ABSTRACT
2. Roger VL, Farkouh ME, Weston SA, et al. Sex differences in evaluation and outcome of unstable angina. JAMA. 2000;283:646-652.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Miller TD, Roger VL, Hodge DO, et al. Gender differences and temporal trends in clinical characteristics, stress test results and use of invasive procedures in patients undergoing evaluation for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:690-697.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M, Mackiernan YD. Differences in procedure use, in-hospital mortality, and illness severity by gender for acute myocardial infarction patients. Med Care. 1997;35:158-171.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
5. Rathore SS, Chen J, Want Y, Radford MJ, Vaccarino V, Krumholz HM. Sex differences in cardiac catheterization: the role of physician gender. JAMA. 2001;286:2849-2856.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Vaccarino V, Parsons L, Every NR, Barron HV, Krumholz HM. Sex-based differences in early mortality after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:217-225.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. Malenka DJ, O'Connor GT, Quinton H, et al. Differences in outcomes between women and men associated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a regional prospective study of 13,061 procedures: Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. Circulation. 1996;94(9 suppl):II99-II104.
PUBMED
8. Vaccarino V, Abramson JL, Veledar E, Weintraub WS. Sex differences in hospital mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery: evidence for a higher mortality in younger women. Circulation. 2002;105:1176-1181.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Abramson JL, Veledar E, Weintraub WS, Vaccarino V. Association between gender and in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention according to age. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91:968-971.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Gan SC, Beaver SK, Houck PM, et al. Treatment of acute myocardial infarction and 30-day mortality among men and women. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:8-15.
FREE FULL TEXT
11. Ghali WA, Faris PD, Galbraith PD, et al. Sex differences in access to coronary revascularization after cardiac catheterization: importance of detailed clinical data. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:723-732.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Bell MR, Berger PB, Holmes DR, et al. Referral for coronary artery revascularization procedures after diagnostic coronary angiography: evidence for gender bias? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1650-1655.
ABSTRACT
13. Bickell NA, Pieper KS, Lee KL, et al. Referral patterns for coronary artery disease treatment: gender bias or good clinical judgment? Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:791-797.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
14. Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Dirschinger J, et al. Sex-based analysis of outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated predominantly with percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2002;287:210-215.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Chandra NC, Ziegelstein RC, Rogers WJ, et al. Observations of the treatment of women in the United States with myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:981-988.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Abramov D, Tamariz MG, Sever JY, et al. The influence of gender on the outcome of coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70:800-806.
FREE FULL TEXT
17. O'Rourke DJ, Malenka DJ, Olmstead EM, et al. Improved in-hospital mortality in women undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:507-511.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Mueller C, Neumann F-J, Roskamm H, et al. Women do have an improved long-term outcome after non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes treated very early and predominantly with percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:245-250.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. Ghali WA, Knudtson ML, for the APPROACH Investigators. Overview of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease. Can J Cardiol. 2000;16:1225-1230.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
20. Dash H, Johnson RA, Dinsmore RE, et al. Cardiomyopathic syndrome due to coronary artery disease: relation to angiographic extent of coronary disease and to remote myocardial infarction. Br Heart J. 1977;39:733-739.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Califf RM, Phillips HR III, Hindman MC, et al. Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;5:1055-1063.
ABSTRACT
22. Graham MM, Faris PD, Ghali WA, et al. Validation of three myocardial jeopardy scores in a population-based cardiac catheterization cohort. Am Heart J. 2001;142:254-261.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
23. Smith LR, Harrel FE Jr, Rankin JS, et al. Determinants of early versus late cardiac death in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 1991;84(5 suppl):III245-III253.
PUBMED
24. Fleming TR, Harrington DP. Counting Processes and Survival Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1991.
25. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ. Generalized Additive Models. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1990.
26. Legato MJ. Gender and the heart: sex-specific differences in normal anatomy and physiology. J Gend Specif Med. 2000;3:15-18.
PUBMED
27. Jelinski SE, Ghali WA, Parsons GA, Maxwell CJ. Absence of sex differences in pharmacotherapy for acute myocardial infarction. Can J Cardiol. In press.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Sex Differences in Mortality After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Robert H. Habib, Anoar Zacharias, Thomas A. Schwann, Christopher J. Riordan, Samuel J. Durham, and Aamir Shah
JAMA. 2004;292(1):40-41.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sex Differences in Mortality After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery—Reply
Kathryn M. King, Peter D. Faris, and William A. Ghali
JAMA. 2004;292(1):41.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The relationship between body mass index, treatment, and mortality in patients with established coronary artery disease: a report from APPROACH
Oreopoulos et al.
Eur Heart J 2009;30:2584-2592.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The impact of gender on outcomes of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction transported for percutaneous coronary intervention: analysis of the PRAGUE-1 and 2 studies
Motovska et al.
Heart 2008;94:e5-e5.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A comprehensive view of sex-specific issues related to cardiovascular disease
Pilote et al.
CMAJ 2007;176:S1-S44.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Obesity and Small Body Size on Operative and Long-Term Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Analysis
Habib et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2005;79:1976-1986.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sex Differences in Stroke Care and Outcomes: Results From the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network
Kapral et al.
Stroke 2005;36:809-814.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is aspirin resistance or female gender associated with a high incidence of myonecrosis after nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention?
Poulsen et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:635-636.
FULL TEXT
Is there a gender paradox in the early invasive strategy for non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes?
Elkoustaf and Boden
Eur Heart J 2004;25:1559-1561.
FULL TEXT
Sex Differences in Mortality After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Habib et al.
JAMA 2004;292:40-41.
FULL TEXT
Women at Increased Risk for Death After Cardiac Catheterization
JWatch Women's Health 2004;2004:6-6.
FULL TEXT
Treatment Strategy and Timing Might Explain Sex Differences in Post-Cath Outcomes
Journal Watch Cardiology 2004;2004:3-3.
FULL TEXT
Cardiac Outcomes for Women
JWatch Emergency Med. 2004;2004:6-6.
FULL TEXT
|
