Sex Differences in Outcomes After Cardiac Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Studies comparing outcomes of cardiac care in women vs men yield various results, with some suggesting worse outcomes for women and others suggesting equivalent outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether extent of coronary disease, treatment strategy, and follow-up time influence the risk of death in women vs men among patients who have had cardiac catheterization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We studied a large inception cohort by using detailed clinical data from a registry of 37 401 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Alberta, Canada, from 1995-2000, with follow-up through December 31, 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The risk of death for women vs men was assessed for all patients combined and then in analyses stratified by degree of coronary anatomic risk and by treatment strategy (no revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery). The latter analysis included a graphic assessment of the changing relative risk over time for women vs men. RESULTS: Women had higher 1-year mortality than men did (5.6% vs 4.6%; P<.001). However, stratified analyses demonstrated that sex differences in risk occurred only early after catheterization and were most apparent among patients undergoing revascularization. The early risk-adjusted relative risks for women vs men were elevated at 3.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-6.24) for CABG surgery and 2.38 (95% CI, 1.48-3.83) for PCI on day 1 after catheterization, with a subsequent decrease in relative risk over time to equivalence in risk between sexes before 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Sex-based differences in death rates after cardiac catheterization are time- and treatment-specific. This finding may at least partially explain the discrepancies in results from earlier studies on sex differences in outcomes of cardiac care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".