ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026
How Sex and Race/Ethnicity Influence Interventional Cardiology Outcomes: What Do We Know?
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite substantial advances in interventional cardiology, profound disparities in access to care and clinical outcomes remain across racial/ethnic and sex groups. These inequities arise from a complex interplay of biological differences, structural barriers, and sociocultural determinants that shape disease recognition, treatment allocation, procedural decision-making, and long-term follow-up. A further driver is the limited understanding of cardiovascular disease in female patients and racial/ethnical minorities, largely attributable to their persistent underrepresentation in clinical research, thereby restricting the external validity of evidence and perpetuating gaps in practice. This review explores how social and biological dimensions intersect to influence risk profiles, clinical presentation, procedural strategies, and secondary prevention in contemporary practice, focusing on the 2 most widely performed interventions in cardiology: percutaneous coronary intervention and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. It also highlights how such differences are often not integrated into standardized pathways of care, allowing inequities to persist even in the era of advanced cardiovascular technologies. Ultimately, it may serve as a call to action: advancing equity in interventional cardiology requires more than representative trial enrollment. It demands reform in study design, systematic stratification of outcomes, and structural change in care delivery to ensure that innovations in cardiovascular medicine benefit all patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.