ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine sex bias in the selection of strategies to evaluate patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and determine if the choice of strategy influences survival. BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the role of female sex in the use of invasive evaluation for AMI and its possible effect on adverse outcomes. METHODS: Electronic health record data from the Geisinger Acute Myocardial Infarction Cohort (GAMIC) was analyzed which included 1,968 men and 1,047 women admitted to the Geisinger Medical Center between January 2001 and December 2006 with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine independent correlates of an invasive evaluation. Multivariate logistic regression modeling stratified on sex was used to determine when invasive evaluation was done and whether there was a correlation with mortality. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, male sex was a significant predictor for the use of invasive evaluation (odds ratio = 1.71, 95% CI = [1.46, 2.00]). Adjusted for baseline differences (like age, renal function, co-morbid conditions) multivariate analyses found no significant relationship between male sex and invasive evaluation (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = [0.82, 1.23]). Females in the STEMI group were found to be less revascularized. No difference was observed in the one-year mortality between women and men regardless of invasive evaluation or revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Sex was not independently associated with the occurrence of an invasive evaluation of a MI. Females in the STEMI group were less revascularized. There was no strong gender effect on survival irrespective of the performance on an invasive evaluation or revascularization.
