Influence of Gender on In-Hospital Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes and on One-Year Follow-Up In the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) Registry

Abstract

Higher complication rates and lower success rates for treatment of women compared with men have been reported in prior studies of coronary angioplasty and in most early reports of outcome with new coronary interventional devices. In multivariate analysis this has been attributed largely to older age and other unfavorable clinical characteristics. These results are reflected in the current guidelines for coronary angioplasty. Women in prior studies have also had different distributions of vessel and lesion characteristics, but the influence of these differences on the outcome of new-device interventions have not been adequately evaluated. This article evaluates the influence of gender on clinical and angiographic characteristics, interventional procedure and complications, angiographic success, and clinical outcomes at hospital discharge and 1-year follow-up, as observed in the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) registry. The NACI registry methodology has been reported in detail elsewhere in this supplement. This study focuses on the 90% of patients—975 women and 1,880 men—who had planned procedures with a single new device and also had angiographic core laboratory readings. Women compared with men were older, had more recent onset of coronary ischemic pain that was more severe and unstable, and had more frequent histories of other adverse clinical conditions. The distributions of several but not all angiographic characteristics before intervention were considered more favorable to angioplasty outcome in women. Differences were observed in device use and procedure staging. Angiographically determined average gain in lumen diameter after new-device intervention, with or without balloon angioplasty, was significantly less in women (1.38 mm) than in men (1.53 mm; p <0.001); this 0.15 mm difference is consistent with the 0.16-mm smaller reference vessel lumen diameter of women. However, final percent diameter stenoses and TIMI flow and lesion compliance characteristics were similar. Among procedural complications, only treatment for hypotension, blood transfusion, and vascular repair occurred more often in women. More women than men were clinically unstable (2.1% vs 1.1%) or went directly to emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG; 1.2% vs 0.6%) on leaving the interventional laboratory. However, in-hospital death (1.4% vs 1.1%), Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (0.9% vs 1.1%), and emergent CABG (1.5% vs 1.0%, for women and men, respectively) were not significantly different. Nonemergent CABG was more frequent in women (1.8% vs 0.9%; p <0.05) and length of hospital stay after device intervention was longer (4.4 days vs 3.8 days in men; p <0.01). In both univariate and multivariate analyses gender did not emerge as a significant variable in relation to the combined endpoint, death, Q-wave MI, or emergent CABG at hospital discharge. At 1-year follow-up more women than men reported improvement in angina (70% vs 62%) and fewer women than men had had repeat revascularization (32% vs 36%). Similar proportions were alive and free of angina, Q-wave MI and repeat revascularization (46% of women vs 45% of men). Although several procedure-related complications were more frequent in women than men after coronary interventions with new devices, no important disadvantages were observed for women in the rates of major clinical events at hospital discharge and at 1-year clinical follow-up. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the complex interplay of clinical, vessel, and lesion characteristics on success and complications of specific interventional techniques and to determine whether gender, per se, is a risk factor and whether gender specific interventional strategies may be beneficial.