Gender Differences in Coronary Heart

Disease

Ramzi Y Khamis, Tareq Ammari, Ghada W Mikhail.

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. London.
UK.

Curriculum Sections

2.8 (Acute Coronary Syndromes) and 2.9 (Chronic Ischaemic Heart disease).

Learning Objectives.

Outline the differences in the presentation patterns, clinical characteristics, behavioural

characteristics and clinical outcomes relating to gender and coronary heart disease (CHD).
This will incorporate the following:

Knowledge: Understand the benefit of cardiovascular interventions in women in comparison

to men in both the acute and chronic presentations of CHD. Delineate the data reflecting the
need for more research into women and heart disease, coupled with more patient, and
physician education.

Skills: Learn the presentation patterns and gender-specific issues related to patients
presenting with CHD.

Behaviours and Attitudes: Discuss The Preconceived Ideas Around Gender And Heart
Disease, Emphasising The Need For Enhanced Assessment Of Women With Heart Disease.

Keywords: Gender, Coronary Heart Disease, and Women.

1
Introduction

The importance of CHD as a disease of both genders tends to be underappreciated, although

in 2014 CHD claimed almost three times more lives than breast cancer. Just below one in five
male deaths and one in ten female deaths were attributed to CHD. The British Heart
Foundation’s report in that same year states that CHD by itself is the biggest single cause of
death in the UK [1].

In general, women with CHD have worse outcomes than their male counterparts when no
adjustments are made for other characteristics and co-morbidities. Women tend to present
with coronary artery disease later in life, and even when they present young they tend to
receive less evidence based treatment than their male counterparts [2].

An important question is whether gender per se predisposes to higher cardiovascular risk.

Much of the research in this field has been in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI)
with conflicting evidence from different studies. Some studies reported that gender is an
independent risk factor for worse outcomes [3] whilst others attributed the increased risk to
other characteristics, some of which may be gender related, such as vessel size [4].

The goal of this review is to highlight the differences in CHD outcomes between genders in
both the acute and chronic settings. It will also explore major factors that may lead to these
differences in particular pathological, physiological, presentation patterns, differences in
diagnosis and management as well as benefit gained from pharmacological therapies and
interventional procedures.

Differences in Outcomes: Is gender an independent prognostic factor of

worse clinical outcomes in CHD?

This section will explore the differences in outcomes between men and women focusing on
the common clinical scenarios, where gender is considered to be a possible prognostic factor

Chronic Stable Angina (CSA)

Most data in the field of CSA and gender has been extrapolated from sub-studies or registries,
which all resulted in similar conclusions. Daly et al. reported a significant gender bias in the
use of investigations and medical therapy in stable angina and also described less
revascularisation in women [5]. This was echoed by the large prospeCtive observational

2
LongitudinAl RegIstry oF patients with stable coronary arterY disease (CLARIFY) study that
reported in 2012 that women with CSA were more likely to be older, have hypertension and
diabetes [6]. Lower rates of revascularisation were also noted in women. Interestingly one-
year outcomes were the same between the genders but this may be as a result of the short
follow up period.

Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS)

Most historical studies have shown that women with AMI have an unfavourable outcome
compared to their male counterparts [4, 7]. Mortality rates after AMI have been shown to be
higher amongst women than men both in-hospital and at one year [8]. In addition, serious
complications of AMI, such as cardiogenic shock, congestive cardiac failure, and re-
infarction are more frequent in women [9]. Increased risk appears to be highest in young
women, whose in-hospital mortality is almost twice that of men. In a study from Newcastle,
although women presenting with AMI were more likely to present in cardiogenic shock
(11.6% vs 8.3%, p = 0.01) and were older (69.9 years vs 64.2 years, p = 0.02), there was no
gender difference in in-hospital mortality [10].

The type of presentation, whether ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or Non-ST

elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), also has an impact on gender-based outcomes. A
large database analysis of nearly 140,000 patients presenting with both STEMI and NSTEMI
demonstrated that the overall 30-day mortality in women was almost double that of men [11].
However, this difference did not survive the multivariate analysis model. Interestingly, the
mode of presentation affected the differences in mortality. In STEMI, 30-day mortality was
higher amongst women than men whereas in NSTEMI and unstable angina, mortality was
lower amongst women. This adds to the question of whether women are treated as well as
men when presenting with STEMI [11].

A large American study attempted to answer the question on gender inequality in ACS.
TRANSLATE-ACS (Treatment with ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of
Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome) concluded that women
presenting with AMI had higher unadjusted cumulative incidence of 1-year major adverse
cardiac events (MACE) than men (15.7% versus 13.6%, P=0.02). One-year MACE included
composite of all‐cause death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularisation. However, Female
sex was no longer associated with higher incidence of MACE after multivariable adjustment
(hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 1.15) [12]. Whilst in contrast, a

3
European analysis including 74,389 patients from the French Nationwide Hospitals Database
showed that a 30% mortality excess persists amongst women even after age and co-
morbidities are taken into account [3]Error: Reference source not found.

Schiele et al undertook a propensity score-matched analysis study of the effects of clinical

characteristics and treatments on gender difference in outcomes after AMI. This included
more than 3,000 patients from France, a third of whom were women. The study concluded
that women admitted with AMI received fewer effective treatments, as defined by the study,
and have a 2-fold higher 30-day mortality. When adjusting for both baseline characteristics
and treatment (medical treatment, angiography and reperfusion) there was a similar in-
hospital and 30-day mortality between genders, suggesting that a higher use of invasive
procedures and reperfusion strategy could reduce the difference in mortality [13]. A large
multi-centre registry from Poland also showed similar results. It concluded that despite poor
baseline characteristics, less satisfactory management and a worse prognosis in women
undergoing STEMI, female gender by itself was not a risk factor for 12 month mortality [14].

To emphasise the gender inequality in AMI survival, data from Sweden showed that young
male survivors of AMI have low absolute long-term mortality rates, with these rates
remaining two fold to four fold that of the general population. On the other hand, women had
higher absolute mortality than men and a six to fourteen fold risk of death compared to that of
the general population [15]. This suggests that the gender imbalance still exists even in an
advanced Scandinavian healthcare model.

The factors that result in unadjusted worse outcomes for women are summarised in Figure 1.
However, as discussed above, most studies tend to point towards gender not being an
independent predictor of worse outcomes but is rather associated with the presence of co-
morbid factors that lead to adverse events.

Chest Pain With Unobstructed Coronary Arteries:

It was previously assumed that women who presented with chest pain but apparently
‘normal’ coronary arteries on catheterisation are at a lower risk of serious cardiovascular
events. The evidence suggests otherwise. A study comparing one cohort of women with
symptoms and signs suggestive of ischaemia but without obstructive coronary artery disease
with a second cohort of asymptomatic women demonstrated that symptomatic women with
unobstructed coronaries were at a significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or

4
hospitalization for heart failure (7.9% vs 2.4% risk in asymptomatic women) [16]. This may
be explained by microvascular or endothelial dysfunction, a factor that has been a focus of
study [17].

Therefore it is clear that having symptoms without obstructed coronaries may need more
detailed investigation if they persist and almost certainly should prompt the physician to
address cardiovascular risk factors.

Gender- factors that may affect outcome in CHD.

This section will focus on specific pathological, physiological, clinical and management
factors that relate to CHD and have been highlighted in the literature to be different between
genders.

Pathological differences in ACS: Plaque erosion versus plaque rupture

Most AMIs are caused by thrombosis following plaque rupture. Plaque erosion is less
common and represents less than 50% of the pathology on autopsy studies. However, recent
data suggests that younger women have more plaque erosion and the ratio of rupture to
erosion increases with age [18]. The difference is significant, as ruptured plaques often
display expansive remodelling and have the characteristic properties of large necrotic core,
thin fibrous cap and foam cell infiltration. Plaque erosion, however, displays more negative
remodelling with the plaque rich in smooth muscle cells and proteoglycans. There are less
inflammatory components in eroded plaques, thus pointing to a somehow different
pathophysiological process[19]. This may challenge the classical definitions of plaque
vulnerability and therefore may impact on clinical judgement when assessing coronary
lesions with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) in
female patients with ACS.

Physiological factors: Pregnancy and the menopause

Pregnancy is a unique risk factor for women. Pre-eclampsia in pregnancy may be an early
indicator of CHD risk. A large meta-analysis showed that women with pre-eclampsia have
twice the risk of CHD between five and fifteen years following pregnancy. Thus, it is
appropriate to follow up women who have suffered from pre-eclampsia for CHD risk factor
management [20]. Furthermore, spontaneous coronary artery dissection in pregnant women
represents an uncommon but devastating event in usually fit and healthy women [21]. There

5
are postulated hormonal and physiological factors that may lead to dissection in pregnancy
including increased cardiac output, arterial sheer stress, alterations in collagen biology, as
well as increased hormonal levels.

The effect of menopause on CHD risk remains uncertain. In the Study of Women’s Health
across the Nation (SWAN) analysis [22], some risk factors such as total cholesterol were
driven by ovarian ageing whereas others were driven by chronological ageing emphasising
the need for a ‘tailored’ risk stratification strategy.

Following extensive review of evidence, Banks et al found that hormone replacement therapy
(HRT) in post-menopausal women does not reduce the risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD)
[23]. More recently, a hypothesis that early rather than delayed initiation of oestrogen therapy
would be beneficial in preventing CHD was tested in the Women Health Initiative study [24].
The conclusion was that there was no positive effect on CHD risk from starting early
oestrogen therapy. This is in line with current Food and Drug Administration and British
guidelines that HRT should only be used for the short term relief of post-menopausal
symptoms [23].

Differences in presentation:

The symptomatic conundrum in women and the delay in seeking help in both stable
angina and ACS.

Women present with different symptoms than men. Commonly, in the chronic situation,
symptoms that women describe are often referred to as ‘atypical’, which may lead to the
under appreciation of risk associated with this presentation [25]. In ACS, a typical
presentation for a man tends to be chest or arm pain. Although most women present in a
similar fashion, they are more likely to present with less well-defined symptoms and without
chest pain [26]. ‘Atypical’ symptoms commonly include stomach pain, breathlessness as well
as constitutional symptoms such as nausea and fatigue [27].

This ‘symptomatic conundrum’ which may lead to missing important coronary disease, may
also lead to late presentation in STEMI which in turn delays effective reperfusion therapy
including primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) [28]. Analysis from one large

6
registry demonstrated that age may play a part. Younger women tend to present with absence
of chest pain and suffer worse outcomes in comparison to their male counterparts. But, this is
attenuated by age with the difference between genders in the absence of chest pain narrowing
or disappearing as age advances [29].

Some of the delay in presentation can be partly explained by a relative lack of awareness
amongst women about the importance of CHD and the importance of urgent care. A detailed
descriptive behavioural study that investigated 53 American women presenting with AMI
found that a large proportion of the women in this study managed their symptoms by either
attributing them to an alternative cause, or by minimising their importance [30]. The other
key factor that contributes to either delay or lack of presentation is the recently demonstrated
underestimation of own cardiovascular risk. The Berlin Female Risk Evaluation (BEFRI)
Study, a randomised cross-sectional study elegantly demonstrated that less than half of urban
women correctly estimate their cardiovascular risk mainly attributed to age being the
strongest predictor of risk underestimation [31].

Thus the suggestion that women tend to present later than men, and with different symptoms,
sacrificing the valuable prognostic benefit of presenting early is important and should be
considered when assessing women presenting with chest pain and other ‘atypical’ symptoms.

Differences in diagnosis and management:

The ‘gender gap’ in the diagnosis and clinical management of patients presenting with
‘chest pain’.

There is increasing evidence that women presenting with chest pain are not as thoroughly
investigated as men. Registry data from the Euro Heart Survey in the management and
clinical outcomes of stable angina investigated 3,779 patients of which 42% were women
[5]Error: Reference source not found. This showed that women were less likely to undergo an
exercise ECG ( odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95) and less likely to be referred for
coronary angiography (OR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.72). A cross-sectional survey of 1,162
angina patients in Liverpool showed there was a gender-based hierarchy. General
practitioners were more likely to note the risk factors in male patients and refer them for
specialist investigation [25].

However, an Italian study investigating the use of cardiac procedures in relation to age and
sex found there was an age bias but no gender bias in referral to cardiac catheterisation

7
[32]Error: Reference source not found. Although this may not be the case for older women, a
report from the Euro Heart Survey revealed that women above 60 years of age were less
likely than men to be treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and more likely to
be treated with PCI [33]. This age-dependant gender disparity persisted after adjustment of
severity of disease, co-morbidities and other relevant clinical characteristics.

Interestingly in another cohort study, which included 50,000 with ACS, it was suggested that
under-treatment leading to morbidity may not be of significant importance [34]. The study
concluded that although women are less intensively treated, they have better long-term
outcomes than men after adjustment for differences in background characteristics. Thus, the
impact of the ‘under-treatment’ in ACS remains unclear. This will be partly addressed in the
outcomes section by discussing whether women benefit as much as men from coronary
intervention.

Recent work conducted in Edinburgh showed that the use of a high-sensitivity troponin assay
is better at diagnosing women with ACS than the standard assay. This may well be due to the
use of a ‘normal’ threshold that is too high for women. Therefore future direction of having
thresholds that are different for women and men using high-sensitivity assays are underway
and may improve the clinical diagnosis of ACS in women [35].

Coronary Intervention
Early studies suggested that women might not benefit as much as men from bare metal stent
(BMS) implantation[36]. Extensive registry data from the American National Heart, Lung
and Blood institute demonstrated that the use of drug eluting stents (DES) in both men and
women is safe and beneficial [37]. The TAXUS IV study suggested that safety and benefits
of the paclitaxel eluting stent (PES) in reducing clinical and angiographic restenosis are
generalizable to women [38]. Following this, a comprehensive gender analysis of the TAXUS
trials was undertaken. ‘Taxus Woman’ included around 10,000 patients of whom >3,000
were women. It concluded that despite their higher risk profile, women have comparable
benefits to men from PCI with PES except for a slightly higher revascularisation rate in the
high-risk cohort [39].

When studying sirolimus eluting stents (SES), when compared to BMS, there were reductions
in both in-stent restenosis and one-year MACE in men and women [40]. This reduction, as
excepted, was driven by a lower incidence of target lesion revascularisation and target vessel

8
revascularisation in both genders. Furthermore, female gender was not found to be an
independent predictor of negative outcome in multivariate analyses.

Data from ‘second generation’ DES use is now emerging. In the Clinical Evaluation of the
XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De
Novo Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) Women study, which was the first prospective
analysis of an‘ all-comers’ female population with a considerably high patient and lesion risk
profile, the Xience V stent was shown to be safe and effective [41]. There was a low rate of
TLR (2.4%) and stent thrombosis (0.59%), which is consistent with the data shown in
previous all comer studies containing both male and female patients.

Furthermore, a large analysis from the USAError: Reference source not found including
nearly 23,000 subjects has demonstrated that in the modern era of stenting, differences in
mortality and MACE between men and women no longer exist after coronary angioplasty.
There was a persistence of risk in other more minor complications, leading to the conclusion
that technological advances have not completely eliminated the gender gap, but narrowed it
significantly [42].

The safety of DES in women was further confirmed in a pooled analysis of 11,557 female
patients from 26 randomised trials. This not only showed safety of DES in women, but also
confirmed that newer generation DES have a more favourable safety profile than early DES
and thus should be the treatment of choice in women [43].

As interventional techniques are being developed, new gender gaps are appearing. A recent
study from the Mayo Clinic demonstrated that long-term outcome differs between women
and men undergoing fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided intervention. There was a clear
signal that women suffered more events whether they were treated medically or with PCI as
per FFR guidance [44]. There is also a suggestion that IVUS-based measures of both ‘culprit’
and non-culprit’ lesions is different in both genders[45]. One study suggested that thin-cap
fibroatheromas (TCFA) are a stronger marker of plaque vulnerability in women than men
[46]. This suggests the need for future gender-based approaches when determining
physiology or imaging based cut-off values in interventional cardiology.

Another example of a significant advance in interventional techniques that may narrow the
gap further is radial access, which may improve outcomes, as bleeding risk seems to be a
major aspect of female gender-specific risk. However, SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of

9
Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) showed no significant difference in the
primary efficacy endpoint of Academic Research Consortium type two, three, or five
bleeding or vascular complications between radial or femoral access in women requiring
intervention [47]. However, amongst women undergoing cardiac catheterisation or PCI,
radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR:
0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher amongst women
assigned to radial access PCI cohort, but more women preferred radial access [47].

There is now a growing body of evidence that discrepancies seen in worse outcome for
women receiving stents in different circumstances are either no longer present or are
significantly reduced when correcting for confounders. As the area of interventional
cardiology evolves, gender-based strategies need to be considered. This would be important
to address when designing new trials for new stent technologies such as bioresorbable
scaffolds.

Pharmacological therapy: a focus on antiplatelet agents and statins

Women have been shown to have a different response to antiplatelet agents than men[48].
Despite the use of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty,
women tend to have a higher residual platelet activity than their male counterparts [49].

The Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty

Complications (CADILLAC) trial [50] demonstrated that women have comparable outcomes
to men when using abciximab in the context of ACS. This was strengthened by the findings
of the EArly discharge after Stenting of coronarY arteries (EASY) trial which showed that
when using radial approach, maximal antiplatelet therapy including abciximab, female gender
does not convey more risk of bleeding than male gender. [51].

Statins on the other hand have historically been suggested to have a less significant effect on
the reduction of cardiovascular events in primary prevention trials in women. The
Management of Elevated cholesterol in the primary prevention  Group of Adult Japanese
(MEGA) study showed that the reduction in events was significant  only in men (The primary
composite end point was the first occurrence of CHD, comprising fatal and nonfatal
myocardial infarction, cardiac and sudden death, coronary revascularisation, and angina)
[52]. This notion has recently been challenged for the first time by the JUPITER trial in

10
which 6,801 women were randomised to Rosuvastatin versus placebo compared with 11,001
men [53]. Statin treatment of apparently healthy women with elevated hsCRP  and non-
elevated low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol resulted in similar and
significant proportional reductions in CHD compared with men. There is little data in
secondary prevention, although recent IVUS-based study showed greater coronary
atherosclerosis regression in women compared with men when using high intensity statins,
particularly in the context of lower achieved LDL levels [54].

Behavioural and psychological factors.

Younger women have a significantly higher rate of depression following cardiac events [55].
This generally puts women in an overall higher risk category, as they suffer worse physical
and psychological outcomes. It is therefore important to pay special attention to the
psychological sequelae of CHD in women.

The prevalence of tobacco smoking in women is on the increase. This has been linked to
gender empowerment [56]. In developed countries, the female-to-male ratio in smoking
prevalence is higher than other countries, thus emphasising the need for targeted education of
younger women in rising economies.

Research, Education and Future directions

Women have been under-represented in research trials, approximately no more than 30% of
study populations being female [57] . This recruitment bias leads to a gap in the evidence,
with most data extracted from post-hoc analyses of trials, and meta-analyses rather than
gender-based randomised control studies. There are however encouraging examples from the
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) field that can be followed, where both men
and women were sufficiently represented in interventional cardiovascular registries and trials
[58, 59].

A number of international initiatives and campaigns have been set up to address both the
educational and research void. These initiatives aim to enhance research in women and heart
disease, increase physician and allied health professional education into the subject, as well
as raise the public awareness of the extent of heart disease in women.

Future directions should include research programmes focused on studying factors that are
unique to women that may affect outcome. Development of gender-specific technologies,

11
pharmacological therapies, as well as more education and awareness amongst women and
physicians on the importance of CHD is needed.

Summary box 1 details suggested future actions to tackle the gender disparity in CHD.

Summary Box 1. Future actions to tackle the gender gap

Gender-
Public Physician tailored Research
awareness Focus on education on management initiatives
campaigns women- presentation of e.g. different focussing on
addressing late specific risk coronnary biomarkers, gender
presentation in factors disease in drugs and specific study
women women optimised design
interventions

Conclusion:
Women presenting with symptoms suggestive of CHD need to be treated appropriately and as
‘aggressively’ as their male counterparts. Atypical presentation patterns should not detract the
physician from tackling the risk factors appropriately and arranging further investigation if
there is a high-risk index of suspicion. More attention should be given to younger women as
they may suffer significantly worse outcomes. The field is in urgent need of specifically
designed trials that focus on women, collecting more gender tailored data, and development
of further technologies and techniques that may further close the gender gap.

Key messages:

1) Women may present late with ‘atypical symptoms’, which may delay investigations and
treatment for CHD. There is a referral bias where women are less intensively investigated and
treated than their male counterparts.

12
2) Women have worse outcomes from both CSA and ACS which may be related to a worse
co-morbid profile as well as under-treatment when compared to men.

3) Women with CHD benefit as much from coronary intervention and drug eluting stents and
should be treated as intensively as men.

4) There are special factors that are gender related such as pregnancy, the menopause,
response to platelets as well as psychological factors that need to be considered when
assessing and treating women with suspected CHD.

5) More gender-based diagnostic criteria and gender- specific treatment protocols may help in
the future management of women presenting with CHD in order to close the gender gap in
outcomes.

The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on
behalf of all authors, an exclusive license (or non-exclusive for government employees) on a
worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and its Licensees to permit this article (if
accepted) to be published in HEART editions and any other BMJPGL products to exploit all
subsidiary rights.

References:

1 Townsend N, Williams J, Bhatnager P, et al. Cardiovascular disease statistics, 2014. British

Heart Foundation, London, UK.
2 Davis M, Diamond J, Montgomery D, et al. Acute coronary syndrome in young women under
55 years of age: clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Clin Res Cardiol 2015.
3 Milcent C, Dormont B, Durand-Zaleski I, et al. Gender differences in hospital mortality and
use of percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: microsimulation analysis
of the 1999 nationwide French hospitals database. Circulation 2007;115:833-9.
4 Kosuge M, Kimura K, Kojima S, et al. Sex differences in early mortality of patients undergoing
primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction. Circ J 2006;70:217-21.
5 Daly C, Clemens F, Lopez Sendon JL, et al. Gender differences in the management and clinical
outcome of stable angina. Circulation 2006;113:490-8.
6 Steg PG, Greenlaw N, Tardif JC, et al. Women and men with stable coronary artery disease
have similar clinical outcomes: insights from the international prospective CLARIFY registry. Eur
Heart J 2012;33:2831-40.
7 Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with
thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial
Infarction Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993;328:673-9.
8 Thom T, Haase N, Rosamond W, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2006 update: a
report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics
Subcommittee. Circulation 2006;113:e85-151.

13
9 Goldberg RJ, Gorak EJ, Yarzebski J, et al. A communitywide perspective of sex differences
and temporal trends in the incidence and survival rates after acute myocardial infarction and out-of-
hospital deaths caused by coronary heart disease. Circulation 1993;87:1947-53.
10 Kunadian V, Qiu W, Bawamia B, et al. Gender comparisons in cardiogenic shock during ST
elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol
2013;112:636-41.
11 Berger JS, Elliott L, Gallup D, et al. Sex differences in mortality following acute coronary
syndromes. JAMA 2009;302:874-82.
12 Hess CN, McCoy LA, Duggirala HJ, et al. Sex-based differences in outcomes after
percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a report from TRANSLATE-ACS.
J Am Heart Assoc 2014;3:e000523.
13 Schiele F, Meneveau N, Seronde MF, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis of effects of
clinical characteristics and treatment on gender difference in outcomes after acute myocardial
infarction. Am J Cardiol 2011;108:789-98.
14 Sadowski M, Gasior M, Gierlotka M, et al. Gender-related differences in mortality after ST-
segment elevation myocardial infarction: a large multicentre national registry. EuroIntervention
2011;6:1068-72.
15 Nielsen S, Bjorck L, Berg J, et al. Sex-specific trends in 4-year survival in 37 276 men and
women with acute myocardial infarction before the age of 55 years in Sweden, 1987-2006: a
register-based cohort study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004598.
16 Gulati M, Cooper-DeHoff RM, McClure C, et al. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes in women
with nonobstructive coronary artery disease: a report from the Women's Ischemia Syndrome
Evaluation Study and the St James Women Take Heart Project. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:843-50.
17 Murthy VL, Naya M, Taqueti VR, et al. Effects of sex on coronary microvascular dysfunction
and cardiac outcomes. Circulation 2014;129:2518-27.
18 Falk E, Nakano M, Bentzon JF, et al. Update on acute coronary syndromes: the pathologists'
view. Eur Heart J 2013;34:719-28.
19 Fishbein MC. The vulnerable and unstable atherosclerotic plaque. Cardiovasc Pathol
2010;19:6-11.
20 Bellamy L, Casas JP, Hingorani AD, et al. Pre-eclampsia and risk of cardiovascular disease and
cancer in later life: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj 2007;335:974.
21 Higgins GL, Borofsky JS, Irish CB, et al. Spontaneous Peripartum Coronary Artery Dissection
Presentation and Outcome. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 2013;26:82-9.
22 Matthews KA, Crawford SL, Chae CU, et al. Are changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors
in midlife women due to chronological aging or to the menopausal transition? J Am Coll Cardiol
2009;54:2366-73.
23 Banks E, Canfell K. Invited Commentary: Hormone Therapy Risks and Benefits--The Women's
Health Initiative Findings and the Postmenopausal Estrogen Timing Hypothesis. Am J Epidemiol 2009.
24 Clarkson TB, Melendez GC, Appt SE. Timing hypothesis for postmenopausal hormone
therapy: its origin, current status, and future. Menopause 2013;20:342-53.
25 Crilly MA, Bundred PE, Leckey LC, et al. Gender bias in the clinical management of women
with angina: another look at the Yentl syndrome. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2008;17:331-42.
26 Khan NA, Daskalopoulou SS, Karp I, et al. Sex differences in acute coronary syndrome
symptom presentation in young patients. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1863-71.
27 Meischke H, Larsen MP, Eisenberg MS. Gender differences in reported symptoms for acute
myocardial infarction: impact on prehospital delay time interval. Am J Emerg Med 1998;16:363-6.
28 Nguyen HL, Saczynski JS, Gore JM, et al. Age and sex differences in duration of prehospital
delay in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual
Outcomes 2010;3:82-92.
29 Canto JG, Rogers WJ, Goldberg RJ, et al. Association of age and sex with myocardial
infarction symptom presentation and in-hospital mortality. Jama 2012;307:813-22.

14
30 Rosenfeld AG, Lindauer A, Darney BG. Understanding treatment-seeking delay in women
with acute myocardial infarction: descriptions of decision-making patterns. Am J Crit Care
2005;14:285-93.
31 Oertelt-Prigione S, Seeland U, Kendel F, et al. Cardiovascular risk factor distribution and
subjective risk estimation in urban women--the BEFRI study: a randomized cross-sectional study.
BMC Med 2015;13:52.
32 Boccia A, Damiani G, D'Errico MM, et al. Age- and sex-related utilisation of cardiac
procedures and interventions: a multicentric study in Italy. Int J Cardiol 2005;101:179-84.
33 Jorstad HT, Lenzen M, Reimer WSo, et al. GENDER DISPARITY IN CORONARY
REVASCULARISATION MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE: A REPORT FROM THE EURO HEART SURVEY. JACC
2015;57(14s1):E1167-E 
34 Alfredsson J, Stenestrand U, Wallentin L, et al. Gender differences in management and
outcome in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Heart 2007;93:1357-62.
35 Shah AS, Griffiths M, Lee KK, et al. High sensitivity cardiac troponin and the under-diagnosis
of myocardial infarction in women: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2015;350:g7873.
36 Glaser R, Selzer F, Jacobs AK, et al. Effect of gender on prognosis following percutaneous
coronary intervention for stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol
2006;98:1446-50.
37 Abbott JD, Vlachos HA, Selzer F, et al. Gender-based outcomes in percutaneous coronary
intervention with drug-eluting stents (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic
Registry). Am J Cardiol 2007;99:626-31.
38 Lansky AJ, Costa RA, Mooney M, et al. Gender-based outcomes after paclitaxel-eluting stent
implantation in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1180-5.
39 Mikhail GW, Gerber RT, Cox DA, et al. Influence of sex on long-term outcomes after
percutaneous coronary intervention with the paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: results of the "TAXUS
Woman" analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010;3:1250-9.
40 Solinas E, Nikolsky E, Lansky AJ, et al. Gender-specific outcomes after sirolimus-eluting stent
implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2111-6.
41 Morice MC, Mikhail GW, Mauri i Ferre F, et al. SPIRIT Women, evaluation of the safety and
efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in female patients: referral time for
coronary intervention and 2-year clinical outcomes. EuroIntervention 2012;8:325-35.
42 Duvernoy CS, Smith DE, Manohar P, et al. Gender differences in adverse outcomes after
contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: an analysis from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) percutaneous coronary intervention registry. Am Heart
J 2010;159:677-83 e1.
43 Stefanini GG, Baber U, Windecker S, et al. Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in
women: a patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2013;382:1879-88.
44 Li J, Rihal CS, Matsuo Y, et al. Sex-related differences in fractional flow reserve-guided
treatment. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. United States 2013:662-70.
45 Schoenenberger AW, Urbanek N, Toggweiler S, et al. Ultrasound-assessed non-culprit and
culprit coronary vessels differ by age and gender. World J Cardiol 2013;5:42-8.
46 Lansky AJ, Ng VG, Maehara A, et al. Gender and the extent of coronary atherosclerosis,
plaque composition, and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging
2012;5:S62-72.
47 Rao SV, Hess CN, Barham B, et al. A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and
femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for
Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv
2014;7:857-67.
48 Levin RI. The puzzle of aspirin and sex. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1366-8.

15
49 Price MJ, Nayak KR, Barker CM, et al. Predictors of heightened platelet reactivity despite
dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol
2009;103:1339-43.
50 Lansky AJ, Pietras C, Costa RA, et al. Gender differences in outcomes after primary
angioplasty versus primary stenting with and without abciximab for acute myocardial infarction:
results of the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty
Complications (CADILLAC) trial. Circulation 2005;111:1611-8.
51 Tizon-Marcos H, Bertrand OF, Rodes-Cabau J, et al. Impact of female gender and transradial
coronary stenting with maximal antiplatelet therapy on bleeding and ischemic outcomes. Am Heart J
2009;157:740-5.
52 Mizuno K, Nakaya N, Ohashi Y, et al. Usefulness of pravastatin in primary prevention of
cardiovascular events in women: analysis of the Management of Elevated Cholesterol in the Primary
Prevention Group of Adult Japanese (MEGA study). Circulation 2008;117:494-502.
53 Mora S, Glynn RJ, Hsia J, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in
women with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or dyslipidemia: results from the
Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin
(JUPITER) and meta-analysis of women from primary prevention trials. Circulation 2010;121:1069-
77.
54 Puri R, Nissen SE, Nicholls SJ. Statin-induced coronary artery disease regression rates differ in
men and women. Curr Opin Lipidol 2015.
55 Mallik S, Spertus JA, Reid KJ, et al. Depressive symptoms after acute myocardial infarction:
evidence for highest rates in younger women. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:876-83.
56 Hitchman SC, Fong GT. Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence
ratios. Bull World Health Organ 2011;89:195-202.
57 Kim ES, Carrigan TP, Menon V. Enrollment of women in National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute-funded cardiovascular randomized controlled trials fails to meet current federal mandates
for inclusion. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:672-3.
58 Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in
high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187-98.
59 Al-Lamee R, Broyd C, Parker J, et al. Influence of gender on clinical outcomes following
transcatheter aortic valve implantation from the UK transcatheter aortic valve implantation registry
and the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. Am J Cardiol 2014;113:522-8.

16