Sex Differences in Access to Coronary Revascularization after Cardiac Catheterization: Importance of Detailed Clinical Data
- 21 May 2002
- journal article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 136 (10), 723-732
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-10-200205210-00007
Abstract
Although some studies suggest that access to cardiac procedures may differ by sex, others have found no evidence of gender bias in cardiac care. To study rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in men and women after cardiac catheterization. Cohort study with prospective data collection. Alberta, Canada. Persons undergoing cardiac catheterization between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1998 (n = 21 816). The occurrence of revascularization procedures (PCI or CABG) in the year after cardiac catheterization was measured. Unadjusted revascularization rates, partially adjusted rates (adjusted for clinical variables available in most databases, including administrative databases), and fully adjusted rates (additionally adjusted for extent of coronary artery disease and ejection fraction) were also evaluated. The unadjusted relative risk was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.71) for the end point of any revascularization in women relative to men. The relative risk increased to 0.69 (CI, 0.66 to 0.72) with partial adjustment and to 0.98 (CI, 0.94 to 1.03) with full adjustment, indicating equivalent access to revascularization for men and women. For PCI, the corresponding relative risks were 0.77 (CI, 0.73 to 0.82), 0.84 (CI, 0.80 to 0.89), and 1.02 (CI, 0.96 to 1.08). For CABG surgery, the relative risks were 0.54 (CI, 0.51 to 0.58), 0.51 (CI, 0.48 to 0.55), and 0.93 (CI, 0.87 to 1.01). In Alberta, Canada, clinical variables fully explain sex differences in rates of revascularization after cardiac catheterization, and misleading conclusions would arise without full adjustment for clinical differences between men and women. Extreme caution is needed in interpreting reports on access to care that use sparsely detailed clinical data sources. *For members of the APPROACH Steering Committee, see Appendix.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Gender differences in diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease from 1981 to 1997. No evidence for the Yentl syndromePublished by Oxford University Press (OUP) ,2000
- Sex Differences in Evaluation and Outcome of Unstable AnginaJAMA, 2000
- Underuse of Cardiac Procedures: Do Women, Ethnic Minorities, and the Uninsured Fail To Receive Needed Revascularization?Annals of Internal Medicine, 1999
- GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL ISCHEMIA AND INFARCTION IN ENGLANDInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1999
- Gender differences in accessing cardiac surgery across England: a cross-sectional analysis of the Health Survey for EnglandSocial Science & Medicine, 1998
- Observations of the Treatment of Women in the United States With Myocardial InfarctionA Report From the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction-IArchives of Internal Medicine, 1998
- Absence of Sex Bias in the Referral of Patients for Cardiac CatheterizationNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994
- Referral Patterns for Coronary Artery Disease Treatment: Gender Bias or Good Clinical Judgment?Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992
- Selection of Patients for Coronary Angiography and Coronary Revascularization Early after Myocardial Infarction: Is There Evidence for a Gender Bias?Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992
- Differences in the Use of Procedures between Women and Men Hospitalized for Coronary Heart DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1991