Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.</p

Early Impella Support in Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction Improves Short- And Long-Term Survival∗

OBJECTIVES: Early mechanical circulatory support with Impella may improve survival outcomes in the setting of postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, the optimal timing to initiate mechanical circulatory support in this particular setting remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare survival outcomes of patients supported with Impella 2.5 before percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) with those supported after percutaneous coronary intervention (post-PCI). DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study between September 2014 and December 2019 admitted to the Cardiac Arrest Center in Marburg, Germany. PATIENTS: Out of 2,105 patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to acute myocardial infarction with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock between September 2014 and December 2019 and admitted to our regional cardiac arrest center, 81 consecutive patients receiving Impella 2.5 during admission coronary angiogram were identified. OUTCOMES/MEASUREMENTS: Survival outcomes were compared between those with Impella support pre-PCI to those with support post-PCI. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 81 consecutive patients with infarct-related postcardiac arrest shock supported with Impella 2.5 during admission coronary angiogram were included. All patients were in profound cardiogenic shock requiring catecholamines at admission. Overall survival to discharge and at 6 months was 40.7% and 38.3%, respectively. Patients in the pre-PCI group had a higher survival to discharge and at 6 months as compared to patients of the post-PCI group (54.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.04 and 51.4% vs 28.2%; p = 0.04, respectively). Furthermore, the patients in the early support group demonstrated a greater functional recovery of the left ventricle and a better restoration of the end-organ function when Impella support was initiated prior to percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the early initiation of mechanical circulatory support with Impella 2.5 prior to percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved hospital and 6-month survival in patients with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group

Mechanical circulatory support represents an evolving field of clinical research and practice. Currently, several cardiac assist devices have been developed but, among different institutions and countries, a large variation in indications for use and device selection exists. The Impella platform is an easy to use percutaneous circulatory support device which is increasingly used worldwide. During 2014, we established a working group of European physicians who have collected considerable experiencewith the Impella device in recent years. By critically comparing the individual experiences and the operative protocols, this working group attempted to establish the best clinical practice with the technology. The present paper reviews the main theoretical principles of Impella and provides an up-to-date summary of the best practical aspects of device use which may help others gain the maximal advantage with Impella technology in a variety of clinical settings. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd