Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40388110›Full record

ArticleEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025

Antithrombotic drugs for acute coronary syndromes in women: sex-adjusted treatment and female representation in randomised clinical trials. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis.

Valeria Paradies, Giulia Masiero, Andrea Rubboli, Heleen M M Van Beusekom, Francesco Costa, Piera Capranzano, Sophie Degrauwe, Diana A Gorog, Claudia Moreira Jorge, Gill Louise Buchanan and 11 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Sex differences in coronary artery disease.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
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

21 authors.

Valeria ParadiesCardiology Department, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Giulia MasieroInterventional Cardiology Unit, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Andrea RubboliDepartment of Emergency, Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, S. Maria delle Croci Hospital, Ravenna, Italy.
Heleen M M Van BeusekomDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Francesco CostaÁrea del Corazón, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, IBIMA Plataforma BIONAND, Departamento de Medicina UMA, Malaga, Spain and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), Malaga, Spain.
Piera CapranzanoAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Sophie DegrauweCardiology Department, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Diana A GorogFaculty of Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Claudia Moreira JorgeDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal.
Gill Louise BuchananCardiology Department, North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, Carlisle, United Kingdom.
Mirvat AlasnagCardiac Center, King Fahd Armed Forces Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Daniela TrabattoniDepartment of Invasive Cardiology, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Chiara FraccaroInterventional Cardiology Unit, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Dirk SibbingDepartment of Cardiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München, Munich, Germany.
Dariusz DudekDepartment of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Jagiellonian University Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Gemma VilahurResearch Institute Sant Pau (IR SANT PAU), CIBERCV, Barcelona, Spain.
Alaide ChieffoVita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Roxana MehranCardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Davide CapodannoAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Emanuele BarbatoDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Jolanta M Siller-MatulaDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thrombotic and bleeding risks differ between sexes, partly in relation to distinct biology and hormonal status, but also due to differences in age, comorbidities, and body size at presentation. Women experience frequent fluctuations of prothrombotic and bleeding status related to menstrual cycle, use of oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy, or menopause. Although clinical studies tend to underrepresent women, available data consistently support sex-specific differences in the baseline thrombotic and haemorrhagic risks. Compared with men, women feature an increased risk of in-hospital bleeding related to invasive procedures, as well as long-term out-of-hospital bleeding events. In addition, the inappropriate dosing of antithrombotic drugs, which is not adapted to body weight or renal function, is more frequently associated with an increased risk of bleeding in women compared to men. While acute coronary syndrome (ACS) studies support similar antithrombotic drug efficacy, irrespective of sex, women may receive delayed treatment due to bias in their referral, diagnosis, and invasive treatment decisions. The current clinical consensus statement highlights the need for an increased awareness of sex-specific risks and biases in ACS management, with a focus on sex-specific bleeding mitigation strategies, antithrombotic management in special conditions (e.g., myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries), and barriers to female representation in cardiovascular trials. This manuscript aims to provide expert opinion, based on the best available evidence, and consensus statements on optimising antithrombotic therapy according to sex, which is critical to improve sex-based disparities in outcome.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeFibrinolytic AgentsFemaleHemorrhageHumansMalePercutaneous Coronary InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsSex FactorsThrombosisFibrinolytic Agents

Identifiers

PMID40388110
PMCPMC12151167

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.