Sex differences in coronary artery disease severity and mortality: the impact of conventional cardiovascular risk factors

It is still unknown whether traditional risk factors may have a sex specific impact on the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) and subsequent mortality in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We identified 14 793 patients who underwent coronary angiography for acute coronary syndromes in the ISACS-TC (NCT01218776) registry from 2010 to 2019. The main outcome measure was the association between conventional risk factors and severity of CAD and its relationship with 30-day mortality. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated from the ratio of the absolute risks of women versus men using inverse probability of weighting. Severity of disease was categorized as obstructive (≥50% stenosis) versus nonobstructive CAD, specifically Ischemia and No Obstructive Coronary Artery disease (INOCA) and Myocardial Infarction with Non obstructive Coronary Arteries (MINOCA). The RR ratio for obstructive CAD in women versus men among people without diabetes mellitus was 0.49(95%CI,0.41–0.60) and among those with diabetes mellitus was 0.89(95% CI,0.62–1.29), with an interaction by diabetes mellitus status of P =0.002. Exposure to smoking shifted the RR ratios from 0.50 (95% CI, 0.41–0.61) in nonsmokers to 0.75 (95%CI, 0.54–1.03) in current smokers, with an interaction by smoking status of P=0.018. There were no significant sex-related interactions with hypercholesterolemia and hypertension. Women with obstructive CAD had higher 30-day mortality rates than men (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.48–2.07). No sex differences in mortality were observed in patients with INOCA/MINOCA. In conclusion, obstructive CAD in women signifies a higher risk for mortality compared with men. Current smoking and diabetes mellitus disproportionally increase the risk of obstructive CAD in women. Achieving the goal of improving cardiovascular health in women still requires intensive efforts toward further implementation of lifestyle and treatment interventions.

Left Ventricle Modification After Endovascular Aortic Repair

INTRODUCTION Endograft deployment is a well-known cause of arterial stiffness increase as well as arterial stiffness increase represent a recognized cardiovascular risk factor. A harmful effect on cardiac function induced by the endograft deployment should be investigated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of endograft deployment on the arterial stiffness and cardiac geometry of patients treated for aortic aneurysm in order to detect modifications that could justify an increased cardiac mortality at follow-up. MATHERIALS AND METHODS Over a period of 3 years, patients undergoing elective EVAR for infrarenal aortic pathologies in two university centers in Emilia Romagna were examined. All patients underwent pre-operative and six-months post-operative Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV) examination using an ultrasound-based method performed by vascular surgeons together with trans-thoracic echocardiography examination in order to evaluate cardiac chambers geometry before and after the treatment. RESULTS 69 patients were enrolled. After 36 months, 36 patients (52%) completed the 6 months follow-up examination.The ultrasound-based carotid-femoral PWV measurements performed preoperatively and 6 months after the procedure revealed a significant postoperative increase of cf-PWV (11,6±3,6 m/sec vs 12,3±8 m/sec; p.value:0,037).Postoperative LVtdV (90±28,3 ml/m2 vs 99,1±29,7 ml/m2; p.value:0.031) LVtdVi (47,4±15,9 ml/m2 vs 51,9±14,9 ml/m2; p.value:0.050), IVStd (12±1,5 mm vs 12,1±1,3 mm; p.value:0,027) were significantly increased if compared with preoperative measures.Postoperative E/A (0,76±0,26 vs 0,6±0,67; p.value:0,011), E’ lateral (9,5±2,6 vs 7,9±2,6; p.value:0,024) and A’ septal (10,8±1,5 vs 8,9±2; p.value0,005) were significantly reduced if compared with preoperative measurements CONCLUSION The endovascular treatment of the abdominal aorta causes an immediate and significant increase of the aortic stiffness.This increase reflects negatively on patients’ cardiac geometry inducing left ventricle hypertrophy and mild diastolic disfunction after just 6 months from endograft’s implantation.Further investigations and long-term results are necessary to access if this negative remodeling could affect the cardiac outcome of patient treated using the endovascular approach.