Key result
Despite advances in gender-specific medicine, only 45% of women identify heart disease as their leading cause of death, highlighting the need for collaboration with obstetricians and gynecologists.
Why the study?
Despite past declines in cardiovascular mortality, recent rates in women have increased, awareness remains low, and collaboration with obstetricians and gynecologists is needed to promote cardiovascular disease risk identification and reduction.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“As the leading healthcare providers for women, OB-GYNs provide care that goes far beyond reproductive health and are in a unique position to screen, counsel and educate patients on heart health. By acknowledging and discussing the risks and communicating steps women can take to reduce their odds of developing heart disease, OB-GYNs have a powerful opportunity to be the secret weapon in the fight against heart disease.”
“OB/GYNs are primary care providers for many women, and the annual 'well woman' visit provides a powerful opportunity to counsel patients about achieving and maintaining a heart-healthy lifestyle, which is a cornerstone of maintaining heart health.”
“Many women carry these risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and we should be counseling them on lifestyle modification and further follow-up. Many of them don't see their cardiologist or internist until there is a problem. This partnership is key. It's about early counseling and early intervention.”
May encourage CV risk screening in reproductive health settings; leaves open outcome impact pending prospective validation.
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine (now known as the National Academy of Science) published a seminal monograph, Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter ?,1 describing the importance of both sex and gender on human biology and physiology. Gender-specific medicine, which recognizes gender differences and similarities in cardiovascular disease recognition, prevention, and management, has exerted a powerful salutatory effect on women. Significant improvement in mortality and morbidity rates in women have been seen over the past 2 decades, in part as a result of initiatives such as the American Heart Association’s (AHA’s) Go Red For Women movement. Go Red For Women initially focused on raising awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women. This campaign expanded gender-focused research and the development of gender-based guidelines that led to a significant reduction in the rates of death among women. Despite these advances, gender-based inequalities continue, with women being less likely to receive guideline-recommended diagnostic testing and therapies. Furthermore, despite the above-stated declines in mortality, more recently there has been an increase in mortality rates in women.2 Despite significant efforts to raise awareness about heart disease, the most recent data show that only 45% of women identify heart disease as their leading cause of death and that fewer than half of primary care physicians consider cardiovascular disease to be a top concern in women, after breast health and weight.3 A majority of women consider their obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN) to be their primary care physician, particularly women during their childbearing years, and we know that many of the life-span milestones for women impart unique effects on cardiovascular health, particularly pregnancy and menopause. Shaw et al4 use the term healthcare team for women to describe the importance of collaboration among clinicians who care for women …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2018) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease in women. Collaboration with Obstetricians and Gynecologists was evaluated. Despite advances in gender-specific medicine, only 45% of women identify heart disease as their leading cause of death, highlighting the need for collaboration with obstetricians and gynecologists.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: