Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2006; 48:2356-2357, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.083 (Published online 8 November 2006).
© 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
j.jacc.2005.12.083v1
48/11/2356-a    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, K.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

CORRESPONDENCE: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Management of Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes

Kenneth Kessler, MD, FACC*

* University of Miami School of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, c/o 26 William Howard Drive, Glen Mills, Pennsylvania 19342 (Email: kmichaelkessler{at}cs.com).


In a recent study published in the Journal, Anand et al. (1) show that women with acute coronary syndromes underwent less coronary angiography and revascularization and had a higher rate of refractory ischemia and rehospitalization than their male counterparts. It is important to understand that these statements are true—true, but not necessarily related. The difference in total revascularization rates in high-risk female and male populations was only 2.5%; this rate difference could not negate the 8.6% difference in refractory ischemia/revascularization rates between genders. Indeed, there is no direct evidence that increasing the revascularization rate would change outcomes in these women. As Anand et al. (1) point out, there is a relative paucity of information regarding the appropriate treatment of coronary artery disease in women. Moreover, their data demonstrate the conundrum physicians face—namely, that women have a lower prevalence of disease but are harder to treat successfully.

Treatment mores demand that a treatment be of proven efficacy and acceptable harm. If a physician hesitates in applying treatment recommendations that are proven for men but not for women, to a female patient, is that gender bias or good evidence-based medicine? The answer: focused, gender-specific, cardiovascular clinical research.


    References
 Top
 References
 
1. Anand SS, Xie CC, Mehta S, et al. Differences in the management and prognosis of women and men who suffer from acute coronary syndromes J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:1845-1851.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Related Article

Reply
Sonia Anand, Keith A.A. Fox, Campbell Joyner, Salim Yusuf on behalf of the CURE Investigators
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006 48: 2357. [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
j.jacc.2005.12.083v1
48/11/2356-a    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, K.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement