Evidence mapPaperPMID 30051390Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2018

Sex Differences in the Coronary System.

Viviany R Taqueti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
35.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Sex differences of sequential changes in coronary blood flow and microvascular function in patients with suspected angina.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Underrepresentation of women in cardiovascular trials- it is time to shatter this glass ceiling.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Viviany R TaquetiHeart and Vascular Center; Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Departments of Medicine (Cardiology) and Radiology (Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. vtaqueti@bwh.harvard.edu.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL135438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for both women and men. Emerging evidence supports that ischemic heart disease (IHD) may manifest differently in women and men, in ways ranging from the clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of disease to the basic biology and biomechanics of cardiomyocyte function and the coronary circulation. Women consistently present with a higher burden of symptoms and comorbidities as compared with men and experience worse outcomes. These data have proved perplexing given the decreased likelihood of women to demonstrate obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on coronary angiography. Reported sex differences have long been influenced by the practice of defining heart disease primarily as obstructive CAD, but obstructive plaque is now recognized as neither necessary nor sufficient to explain symptoms of IHD, and it is no longer adequate to tailor diagnostic and treatment strategies only to this subset of patients. To date, women remain underrepresented in guideline-changing heart disease research and trials, creating important limitations in the evidence base for cardiovascular medicine. Smaller epicardial coronary arteries in women as compared to men, coupled with differences in shear stress and inflammatory mediators over the life span, may modify the development of CAD in susceptible patients into a diffuse pattern with more contribution from coronary vasomotor dysfunction than focal obstruction. Newer studies corroborate that symptomatic women are more likely than men to present with nonobstructive CAD and coronary microvascular dysfunction. When present, these processes increase cardiovascular risk in both women and men but may constitute an especially malignant phenotype in a subset of severely affected women, with implications for the management of not only CAD but also heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This represents a state-of-the-art review of sex differences in the coronary system, with an eye toward how diverse pathophysiological processes may contribute to IHD phenotypes prevalent in women and men. Beyond providing women and men with equitable optimal care according to current paradigms, understanding the pathophysiology of IHD beyond a conventional focus on obstructive CAD is needed to address what is likely a combination of biological as well as environmental determinants of their prognosis.

Indexed as

Coronary CirculationHealth Status DisparitiesAnimalsCoronary VesselsFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMaleMyocardial IschemiaPrognosisRisk FactorsSex FactorsAtherosclerosisCardiovascular diseaseCoronary flow reserveCoronary microvascular dysfunctionHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionIschemic heart diseaseNonobstructive coronary artery disease

Identifiers

PMID30051390
PMCPMC6467060
OpenAlexW2884144612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.