Sex differences in procedural and clinical outcomes following rotational atherectomy

Aim: Evaluate sex differences in procedural net adverse clinical events and long‐term outcomes following rotational atherectomy (RA). Methods and Results: From August 2010 to 2016, 765 consecutive patients undergoing RA PCI were followed up for a median of 4.7 years. 285 (37%) of subjects were female. Women were older (mean 76 years vs. 72 years; p < .001) and had more urgent procedures (64.6 vs. 47.3%; p < .001). Females received fewer radial procedures (75.1 vs. 85.1%; p < .001) and less intravascular imaging guidance (16.8 vs. 25.0%; p = .008). After propensity score adjustment, the primary endpoint of net adverse cardiac events (net adverse clinical events: all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, target vessel revascularization plus any procedural complication) occurred more often in female patients (15.1 vs. 9.0%; adjusted OR 1.81 95% CI 1.04–3.13; p = .037). This was driven by an increased risk of procedural complications rather than procedural major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Specifically, women were more likely to experience coronary dissection (4.6 vs. 1.3%; p = .008), cardiac tamponade (2.1 vs. 0.4%; p = .046) and significant bleeding (BARC ≥2: 5.3 vs. 2.3). Despite this, overall MACE‐free survival was similar between males and females (adjusted HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.80–1.34; p = .81). Procedural complications during RA were associated with almost double the incidence of MACE at long‐term follow‐up (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.34–2.77; p < .001). Conclusion: Women may be at greater risk of procedural complications following rotational atherectomy. These include periprocedural bleeding episodes and coronary perforation leading to cardiac tamponade. Despite this, the adjusted overall long‐term survival free of major adverse cardiac events was similar between males and females

“We have been magnified for years - now you are under the microscope!": Co-researchers with learning disabilities created an online survey to challenge public understanding of learning disabilities

Public attitudes towards learning disabilities (LDs) are generally reported as positive, inclusive and empathetic. However, these findings do not reflect the lived experiences of people with LDs. To shed light on this disparity, a team of co-researchers with LDs created the first online survey to challenge public understanding of LDs, asking questions in ways that are important to them and represent how they see themselves. Here, we describe and evaluate the process of creating an accessible survey platform and an online survey in a research team consisting of academic and non-academic professionals with and without LDs or autism. Through this inclusive research process, the co-designed survey met the expectations of the co-researchers and was well-received by the initial survey respondents. We reflect on the co-researchers’ perspectives following the study completion, and consider the difficulties and advantages we encountered deploying such approaches and their potential implications on future survey data analysis