Key result
Transcatheter structural heart interventions exhibit sex differences in outcomes, requiring greater female representation in trials.
Why the study?
Structural heart disease interventions and interest in sex-specific outcomes have both increased, prompting an evaluation of sex differences across these procedures.
What are the sex differences in clinical profiles and outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter structural heart disease interventions?
What are the sex differences in clinical profiles and outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter structural heart disease interventions?
This review highlights the importance of understanding sex differences in structural heart interventions and advocates for greater inclusion of women in clinical trials.
The number of structural heart disease interventions has greatly increased in the past decade. Moreover, interest in the sex-specific outcomes of various cardiovascular conditions and procedures has increased. In this review, we discuss the sex differences in the clinical profiles and outcomes of patients undergoing the most commonly performed structural procedures: transcatheter aortic valve replacement, transcatheter edge to edge repair of the mitral and tricuspid valve, transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement, patent foramen ovale closure and left atrial appendage occlusion. We shed light on potential reasons for these differences and emphasize the importance of increasing the representation of women in randomized clinical trials, to understand these differences and support the application of these cutting-edge technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ya’qoub et al. (2023) conducted a review in Structural heart disease. Transcatheter structural heart disease interventions was evaluated. Transcatheter structural heart disease interventions exhibit sex differences in clinical profiles and outcomes, highlighting the need for increased representation of women in randomized clinical trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: