Why the study?
Despite sex differences in pathophysiology and growing incidence of CAD in women, females remain under-represented in randomised coronary trials, making study generalisation problematic.
This EAPCI Women Committee position paper emphasizes the need for greater awareness of sex disparities in percutaneous coronary and structural interventions to ensure effective, evidence-based care for women.
Provides first EAPCI position on sex in percutaneous coronary and structural interventions; leaves open effects on practice and trial equity.
Several expert documents on sex-based differences in interventional outcomes are now available, however this is the first position paper from the EAPCI Women Committee discussing the potential influence of sex in the percutaneous treatment of coronary and structural heart disease. Despite the misconception that coronary artery disease is a 'man's disease', contemporary data shows a growing incidence in women. However, women are under-represented in randomised coronary clinical trials (~25%). The generalisation of such studies is therefore problematic in decision-making for females undergoing coronary intervention. Differences in pathophysiology between sexes exist, highlighting the need for greater awareness amongst healthcare professionals to enable best evidence-based therapies for women as well as for men. Reassuringly, women represent half of the population included in transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials and may actually benefit more. Growing evidence is also emerging for other interventional atrial procedures which may well be advantageous to women. Awareness of sex disparities is increasing, and we must all work collaboratively within our profession to ensure we provide effective care for all patients with heart disease. The EAPCI Women Committee aim to highlight such issues through this position paper and through visibility within the interventional community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chieffo et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: